Violence Against Women

We should all be concerned about violence against women, especially the violence that democratic revolutionaries commit against women.

During the French Revolution, the revolutionaries mandated that all convents close. Women that refused were forcibly removed, raped, and returned to civilian life. Here is what one group of women wrote to the revolutionaries when they learned of the possibility of having to abandon the way of life they chose. They voted 100% to send this letter to the Assembly:

"We should prefer the sacrifice of our lives to that of our calling. This is not the voice of some of our sisters, but of all. The NAtional Assembly has established the claims of liberty---would it prevent the exercise of these by the only disinterested beings who ardently desire to be useful, and have renounced society solely to be of greater service to it? The little commerce we have with this world is the reason why our contentment is so little known. But it is not to ourselves less real and substantial. WE admit of no distinctions, no privileges amongst ourselves; our misfortunes and our property are in common. One heart in one soul. We protest before the nation, in the face of heaven and earth, that it is not in the power of any being to shake our fidelity to our vows, which vows we renew with more ardor than when we first pronounced them."

The democratic revolutionaries of the French Revolution and the cultural revolutionaries of the West to this day have been commiting acts of violence against women (and men) by preventing them from discovering or following the way of life that a well formed conscience would lead them to follow. Let us hope that we can put an end to this kind of violence, so that men and women can be free once again to live lives of virtue, selflessness, and service.

Christmas and Toleration

Modern political and academic discourse emphasizes toleration. It might be good to remember that toleration is not always what it seems. One example of toleration, for example, is the attempt to take Christ out of Christmas. Recently in Chicago, the promoters of the movie "The Nativity" had to include Muslim and Jewish images in order to get approval for a public display to promote their movie. This is "toleration." "Toleration" is the argument that is used to justify gay marriage. We should be careful and aware, that often arguments for toleration are masks for other ends.

Its roots are deep in Western History. During the 18th Century, Voltaire developed a theory of toleration from the example of Julian the Apostate. Voltaire's doctrine of toleration was part of a plan to kick Catholics out of the French Academy and ultimately, French Intellectual and public life. It was a way for a minority to take contro and oppress a majority. This theory of toleration was the basis for the way in which the French Revolutionaries dealt with the Catholic Church during the 1790s in France.

Pius VI recognized toleration for what it was. He noted that since the earliest times of Christianity, "the mask called freedom of thought" and a "false system of toleration" were used to attack the Church. The first doctrine of separation of Church and State goes back to the Acts of the Apostles, when the Pharisees tell Peter that he cannot speak the name Christ in public.

The purpose of toleration is to use it as a mask "to covertly carry out injusticed against the Church." They are meant to "reverse the order of law ... and to put in its place revolution and anarchy." Usually, during or following a time of toleration, we will also see an increase in attacks made on the Church.

We will also see the state attempt to violate the freedom of speech and freedom of consciences of Catholics, by preventing them from speaking in public or even in Church according to the witness of a well-formed conscience.

This is widespread in Public and Private universities, where the dominant forces use toleration as a club to beat down or exclude from academic discussions any who do not accept the current paradigm as set by revolutionary academics.

Separating Private Life from Public Life

Many are familiar with the way that JFK, Mario Cuomo, and many other politicians in the United States have separated their private opinions from their public or political views. There is precedence for this going back to the French Revolution. In 1791, 4 Bishops signed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and took an oath of loyalty to the new French Church. They effectively created a schismatic Church in France, letting the national legislature, for example, keep the number of priests in France at 6,000. Here is one argument they gave in support of their position:

The Bishops separated their private opinions from their political positions so as to preserve the spiritual purity of their private opinions. Developing this dichotomy was necessary for preserving the political health of the new French Regime, beset, as it was, by so many internal and external troubles. The Bishops stated, “We have never associated our religious sentiments with our political opinions” (352). Inferring from this principle, with respect to the order of the civil government, they reasoned, “the principles that have seemed to us to best conform to the interests of the people, in a stable monarchy, of which we do not wish to reverse its foundations” (352). “All men who are capable of thinking” would accept “the extension and the limits of social equality, about the principles and effects of a well-ordered liberty, without trouble and without license, about the origin of powers. These interesting questions are about philosophy and about politics” (352). God required them to be faithful to these principles “for the good of our country.” In fact, in the current constitutional monarchy, the royal authority obliged them to embrace and act in accord with these principles. To think otherwise would be to “favor an arbitrary power” (353). Instead, they have accepted “the true empire of political liberty” and that “natural equality does not exclude any citizen from the places to which providence calls him by way of his talents and virtues” (353).

Having accepted the empire of political liberty, the Bishops argued that they had to suppress or limit their beliefs about the scope of the influence of the Church over its own matters: the election of Bishops, the installation of priests in parishes, the rules regulating marriage, and whether priests could remain celibate. These matters now fell under the sphere of the political authority, not the spiritual authority.

Foundations of American Democracy

For those of you interested in the foundations of American Democracy, here is a paraphrase from an interesting letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in February 1796, commenting on the French Revolution and how it compares to the quality of American Democracy.

Jefferson fears oligarchy rising in France. A small council will enter into cabals and quarrels. The same happened in the US under the Articles of Confederation. It was resolved by the reality of a unitary Executive. Evils can arrive in this set-up, but only after a long time. Jefferson thinks their successors will be able to work it out. "Both experiments are now fairly committed, and the result will be seen."

In contrast to what he sees in France and every other modern European nation, Jefferson praises the American citizen and the American system for their "pursuits of honesty, industry, independent in their circumstances, enlightened as to their
rights, and firm in their habits of order and obedience to the laws."

This is the age of the experiments in governments based "on principles of honesty, not of mere force. We have seen no instance of this since the days of the Roman Republic."

"Either force or corruption has been the principle of every modern government." In our case, the morals of the people could be made the basis of government. He who will propose to govern a people based on the corruption of the legislature "must convince himself that the human soul as well as body is mortal."

He then warns Adams against ever wanting to imitate the British system. He invites Adams to join him "in detestation of the
corruption of the English government."

Taken from Thomas Jefferson to Adams, February 26th 1796

1789, 1989

I was just thinking last night about how much the world is different from what one might have expected in 1989. I remember back then thinking that now that communism has failed, the West can start to address some of its own internal problems. What we did not see, but what emerged, was an attempt to identify and fight against a new adversary, to make them out to be just as bad as the communists.

In the 1990s, some political elites began identifying the Middle East and Islamic societies as our new enemies. We made ourselves the self-appointed missionaries to bring about regime change in those societies, to make them into democratic regimes. Now, we are starting to think that unless we spread democracy everywhere in the Middle East, all of our efforts will have been in vain. There are some who are arguing, for example, that we have to go for double or nothing in the Middle East. If things are not going well in Iraq, we should punish Iran. We will either win it all, or lose it all.

Thus, our mentality is getting to be very much like the mentality of the French Revolutionaries, who, by 1795 decided that the only way to preserve the Revolution was to make all of Europe like the new French Regime. This plunged Europe into twenty years of war, and paved the way for the revolutionary movements of the 19th and 20th Century, and much, much more.

Reports are coming to us every day that we are in the midst of a 30 year conflict. This Sunday, a New York Times columnist compared our situation to the 30 year war. The revolutionary conflict in France lasted most of the 19th Century, and perhaps persists to this day in Europe. These weeks are important times for us all.

Following Forms and Procedures

Is it those who defend the moral order who are legalists, or those who are rebelling against it. The common charge against the defenders of morality is that they are legalistic in their approach. While it is true that some can be drawn into the legalistic approach to morality, the origin of legalism is more closely related to those who want to deviate from the moral order.

In the Republic Socrates notes that if a group of men have let themselves be taken over by the desire to make money, there are no rules or laws of the marketplace that can stop them from acting on their desires. Rules or laws will simply be occassions for them to devote all of their energies to getting around those rules. They will, in turn, use the rules and laws as a way of protecting their money making desires.

The same is true of the supporters of the French Revolution, and perhaps the reformers of our own day who share the revolutionary mentality. As they were and are bent on attacking the Church, they will always claim to be using the proper proceedures or saving formalities. They will attempt to reduce the Church to a set of rules or proceedures and claim that so long as they preserve the forms, they can act on their desires to undo them.

This was followed by the revolutionaries. The following is a paragraph summarizing the response of the Constitutional Bishops to Pope Pius VI. Remember, the Constitutional Bishops had taken an oath of loyalty to the Civil Constiutiton of the Clergy, which, in effect, put the national legislature in charge of appointing Bishops, appointing priests to parishes, required priests to marry, abolished religious orders, confiscated Church land, and changed the music of the Church:

Whereas Pius VI spoke about the principles of faith, the history of the Church, and consoling the faithful, the schismatic Bishops emphasized rules, forms, and procedures. They claimed to be following “principles” that were “always open, they are the patrimony of all the Churches, and we are the depositories, the guardians, and the dispensers of them” (349). These principles guided them to ignore the briefs of the Pope (351). In doing so, they could preserve the legal formalities that the Church required as well as keep the Church alive in what was an impending violent crisis. The Bishops made three arguments to defend the actions of the revolutionaries, the confiscation of Church property, and the provisions of the new Civil Constitution of the Clergy. One, the new arrangements kept alive the legal procedures required by the Church. It let the French government dictate the terms of the Church’s political organization. Two, it respected the spiritual functions of the Church. Three, it enabled the Church to continue functioning in what had become dramatically violent circumstances.

Are Catholics Prone to Violence?

Some historians and commentors who have written about Pius VI have suggested that he tried to foster a violent counter-revolution against the French Revolution. This leads to an insinuation, common among moderns, that, somehow, religion or men of religion, are prone to violence. This sentiment was expressed by the Phairsees, who tried to prevent the Apostles from speaking in the name of Christ, protesting to the Apostles, what are you trying to do, bring this man's blood upon us?

Just as in the case of the Apostles and the Pharisees, so too in the case of Pius VI, the evidence suggests the contrary. His public statements, private letters, and statements at the Vatican all agree that he sought to oppose only the aspects of the Revolution, specifically the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, that violated the freedom of Catholics in France. He respected the right (whether he agreed with it or not) of the French to change their regime. He argued that this change of regime should respect the freedom of religion of the French people. A further sign that he did not wan to foster a counter revolution is that he did not use the ecclesiastical penalties that he could have used against the revolutionaries and the Bishops who initially took the oath of loyalty to the new Civil Constitution of the Clergy. On every level, he hoped that he could use reason to win back the schismatic Bishops, the King, and even the Revolutionaries.

Below is the evidence.

He opposed the new Constitution by the following: prayer, letters to Louis XVI pointing out the errors of the Constitution in as much as it violates spiritual authority, and letters to the Bishops of Bordeaux and Vienne to the same effect as early as July 10 1790. He delayed responding publically to the events of the Civil Constitution so that the statement that he made was the fruit of study and deliberation. He was acting in this way so as to avoid charges of subterfuge or not properly assessing the circumstances. He had examined the Constitution with a council of Cardinals that he assembled at the Vatican. He also had the Bishops of France, independently of his own study in the Vatican, study the principles of the Civil Constiution of the Clergy. 330 Archbishops and Bishops in France had signed a statement against the Constitution (295-297). Only four Bishops attached themselves to the new Constitution and its errors, while one attempted to take the oath using mental reservation (297-303).

While showing the basic unity that existed among those Catholics in France, the Pope noted the unfair way in which the Constitution singled out the Catholic religion, whose “religion is the only one whose cult is prohibited, from which the Constitution takes from legitimate pastors their ancient possessions, while at the same time it leaves free ministers from other sects, with all of their goods in tact” (307). Ironically, the revolution based on freedom failed to respect the religious freedom of the vast majority of its subjects.

The Pope took an approach of mildness toward the four Bishops who took the oath of the Constitution and the one who took it albeit with mental reservations. The Pope indicated, as he did with Louis XVI, that he was delaying imposing any ecclesiastical punishments on the Bishops that took the oath.

The Pope also did not claim that his position was, necessarily definitive. This does not mean that he was ready to accept or counsel anyone to accept the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. He saw himself as a protector of certain principles that had been lived out over time. His goal was to protect that teaching and to apply it to current circumstances. Like a lawyer or a judge attempting to understand the principles of law and legal cases over history, he applied the doctrine of the Church to the Civil Constitution in a way that respected the principles and history. He challenged all involved to find a way that could reconcile the Church’s teaching to the current circumstances. He invited Louis XVI or anyone else “placed in the middle of the events, to suggest to us a way, if they are able to find one, that would hurt neither dogma nor discipline, assuring them that we would do all that we could to submit to examination and to deliberate their proposal with our councils” (309). The Pope and those around him are ready to study in order to find a remedy to the evil that is being done, if it were possible to find such a remedy. At the same time, they would stubbornly resist any opinion that attached itself to error (309-311).

While the Pope was willing to study the circumstances with men and women of good will and apply the doctrine of the Church in a way that fit the circumstances, he was aware of the possibility, based on his knowledge of history, that some men and women might not be open to the challenge he posed. Sometimes in the past, men who tried to control the appointment of Bishops were interested in changing the doctrine of the Church. The deeds of the schismatic Bishops hinted that their motives were the latter option. “St. Leo spoke long ago about those who want to name their own Bishops and change the way that dioceses are governed: ‘nature itself does not leave any doubt about someone who wants to replace a Bishop who is already in place. One can, without fear of being mistaken, regard this person as corrupt who is trying to gain favor with the enemies of religion’” (315-317).

The Pope reiterated his position that he was not interested in interfering in the political changes that the regime in France was undergoing. As the Pope critiqued the articles of the Constitution, he made clear to the Bishops, as he did to Louis XVI, that “we are trying here to avoid speaking about the government of the civil regime of the realm” (319). He admitted that this was becoming increasingly difficult, as so many of the deeds of the civil government with respect to the new constitution affected the spiritual sphere or politicized the spiritual sphere.

The Pope, though he could have done so, resisted using the threat of ecclesiastical punishments in order to rectify the situation. To begin, he understood that the revolutionaries might be unresponsive to such punishments. In addition, some in France, due to the violent nature of events, might have succumbed to the general spirit of fear that reigned in the country. Finally, his ultimate goal was to work with men of good will to put an end to the evils that the country was undergoing. And so, he “used all indulgence permitted” to his office to resist using the threats of punishments as a way of encouraging certain kinds of action. Instead, he aimed to “find a remedy for the evil that has already been done, and to prevent it from making any further progress” (333).

Freedom to Speak the Truth

Sometimes, all we have is the freedom to speak the truth.

Notice what Pius VI wrote to the Bishops and Catholics in France in April of 1791. This is after the Civil Constitution of the Clergy came out. To remember, the Constiution required all Catholics to take an oath of loyalty to the new Democratic Church of France, which would be controlled by the National Assembly. The Constitution confirmed all of the property taken from the Church. It abolished all religious orders. It required priests to marry. We know, in retrospect, that it would eventually impose the death penalty on those who did not take the Oath. I am not saying this in a spirit of indignation. It is simply to state the facts of what the Constitution required.

Pius VI did not urge the people of France to take up military arms against the Revolutionaries. Instead, he urged that they take up reason. The truth, at this point, was their only defense. He urged the Bishops and all the faithful of France to oppose “this newborn evil with the mild and paternal remedy which is called truth… in revealing to the culpable the enormity of their error, and the gravity of the canonical punishments which they have brought upon themselves" (289-291). The Pope seemed to realize the only argument worthy of refuting the Constitution was the one based on the truth. The people of France’s weapons against the Constitution were their capacity to reason and use the truth to persuade the revolutionaries of the erroneous doctrines embodied in the Constitution.

This is an important lesson that we can never forget. Right now, we are faced with a democratic legislature that will not act on the anti-war/anti-revolutionary democracy sentiment expressed in the past election. Lee Hamilton, former D from Indiana, said a few days ago in the South Bend Tribune that the election was not about any single issue. It was about Congress coming together for a united policy. But, 60% of Americans and 60% of Iraquis would like the US to be out in a year. Bush, leading Republicans and leading Democrats have all rejected that option. If anything, it looks like there will be an increase in troops. In addition, we will expand our efforts at democratic regime change to Iran and Syria.

In short, we are starting to look more and more like the French Revolutionaries, set on spreading democracy throughout the world, by bloody means if necessary. The only means we have to oppose this is to speak the truth, in the hopes of fending off impending disaster in the Middle East, and perhaps beyond.

Sorry, I can't say more or get into more details, but I have to go meet some students.

Joe P.

Attention Music Lovers!

Here is a little paragraph from Pius VI on the sometimes revolutionary effects of music, even before the days of Rock n' Roll!

The National Assembly also descended to the level of regulating the music in Churches. Pius VI observed that dating back to the time of Charlemagne the Church had been attempting to regularize and universalize the singing of Chant in Churches. This kind of singing nourishes piety, excites devotion, and helps the faithful to better fulfill their religious duties (209-213). And so, the Assembly sought to destroy, suppress, and abolish chant, following the example of anti-Catholic revolutionaries throughout the history of the Church (213). The Church had frequently spoken in strong words in favor of preserving chant: “those who think that the chant of psalms is foreign to divine cult ought to be banished from the womb of the Church…. These innovators are in perfect accord with their chief, that is the Prince of darkness, the cause of all iniquities, who seeks to denature, and to corrupt the meaning of the holy writings by evil interpretations” (215). In fact, the Church saw chant as related to the number of vocations that came to the Church (215).

Marriage and Celibacy on CNN

My Mother told me that last night, December 3rd 2006, CNN had a news flash on priestly celibacy, whether the Church is going to call it into question and finally let priests marry. There are two purposes for this news this week. One, there is a conference coming up this week in which Milingo's controllers will try to use his plight to cast the thinking of Catholics into confusion. Two, the media will use this confusion to mute and confuse Catholics when the Church speaks against the impending disaster that is coming in the Middle East, as the United States will get further involved in a military way in the Middle East.

For all you revolutionaries out there hoping for a change in Church discipline, consider this example from the French Revolution:

The Revolutionaries, relying on the spirit of Jansenism and the doctrines of Febronius and under the pretext of only changing the discipline of the Church, also sought to require priests to marry. Pius VI saw the main argument of the authors of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, that the Assembly was only changing the discipline of the Church. It was not changing any of the Church’s doctrines or dogmas. The Pope, in refuting this argument, showed that there are matters of Church discipline that are intimately related to the Church’s doctrine.

Matters of discipline cannot be changed due to external political pressure and they cannot be changed lightly by the Church itself. The Church in 1560 pointed out that schismatic and heretical groups throughout history would attempt to change the discipline of the Church with a view to changing doctrinal points as well, that one of the effects of changing discipline was to weaken the Church’s authority over spiritual matters. In short, discipline is in place to help preserve the dogma or the teachings of the Church. The same people who are advocating for priests to marry are often the same people who would like to change the Church's teaching with respect to contraception, homosexual unions, and social teaching on war and economics.

Both Augustine and Aquinas gave arguments to the effect that matters of discipline in the Church cannot be changed. They agreed that the apparent advantages of reform rarely, if at all, outweighed the harm done instituting new forms of discipline. For this reason, only the gravest of necessity or clear utility of a new form of discipline would warrant a change in discipline. If such a change were to occur, it would have to be able to account for the effects that such a change would have for the common good for all persons and institutions affected by the change (147-149). Pius VI showed that the few attempts to change discipline almost never led to the hoped for advantages, and so such attempts to change discipline only lasted for a short period of time.

The smallest attempts to change discipline led to more serious difficulties. Among the attempts to change discipline that led to worse consequences than the good hoped for were eliminating the external signs of the Mass because individuals or groups mocked it, celebrating the Mass in a vulgar way (that is, in the vernacular and with low class music), changing the criteria by which the Church judged the impediments to marriage, enabling priests and religious to marry, limiting marriage to certain times of the year (this is a superstition and a form of tyranny), eliminating the power of ecclesiastical courts to pronounce on the validity of marriage, using the translation of Missals as a way of promoting disobedience, temerity, audacity, revolt, schism, and all of the evils associated with these movements (149-155). In each of these cases, the innovators hoped for many advantages which never came, rarely lasted, and did not prove to be lasting (155).

The Roots of Democratic Revolutionaries

Throughout history, political regimes have tried to make the religions within their societies reflect the institutions and qualitites of the political regimes. Why have they done this? In part, so that the political regimes could use the energies of religion to build up, keep, and spread their power. If this is true, then the efforts of those who want to make all religious institutions resemble democratic institutions are likely to further feed the revolutionary flames of messianic democracy in its desire to light the world on fire.

Again, turning to the French Revolution, and the efforts of Pius VI to deal with it, we can see the roots of the problem. The problem of course, does not begin with the French Revolution, but during this time Pius saw how the action of democratic revolutionaries would imitate the revolutionary past, represented by the Arian revolutionaries in the Greek world, or a more modern monarchical revolutionary represented by the thought of Marsilius of Padua. An interesting note, right now in political philosophy, there is a revival in the study of the likes of Marsilius of Padua. Leo Strauss encouraged his some of his students to look into and advance the teachings of Marsilius in our own time. There are at least some among the neocons who have a rather cynical view of religion, that the poltical regime should use it and direct it for advancing its own power.

In part, the propaganda effort over the last year to get us riled up about Islam is an example of using religious energies to get everybody on board in thinking about and hating muslims. This is part of the way that the media is framing the news towards the Middle East, to get religious groups critical and angry at each other in a way that will lead us to not feel so bad when we fight them.

Also, for those out there who don't think the second Iraq war was already in the works during the Clinton administration, here is an interesting article from 1999 from someone who saw it coming and was critical of the fact it was coming:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j090400.html

And here is today's history lesson:

After explaining the provisions, Pius VI indicated whence the principles of the Constitution of the Clergy come. They are principles condemned at the Council of Sens in 1527. At that time, the Church had condemned the way in which Marsilius of Padua flattered princes in The Defender of the Peace, arguing that Bishops can only exercise the authority granted to them by the Princes. In addition, Marsilius had asserted that priests, deacons, Bishops, and Popes all had the same authority. If there was a difference in authority between one and the other, it was only because the secular power had recognized and granted this difference in authority. The secular power could grant and revoke this authority at his will. The Council rightly noted that the principles articulated by Marsilius failed to recognize the legitimate independence that the ecclesial power has from the civil power. The spiritual power has a right to establish laws that it sees as appropriate for the spiritual health of its faithful. It also has the right to punish with legitimate spiritual censures. While it is independent of the temporal power, both are worthy of respect (117-119).

There has never been a time in the Church when the Church has permitted its power over spiritual things to be subordinated to the temporal power. The Church has adhered to and defended this principle from its earliest times. For example, Athanasius made clear to the Arian temporal rulers that they should not meddle in ecclesiastical affairs. He made clear that the temporal rulers have been granted the power of the Empire, but that Athansius and his fellow Bishops had power over the government of the Church and the precepts that governed it. Even a revolutionary, who wished to take over the Empire by violence, should resist touching the spiritual order of the things. According to Athanasius, doing violence against the spiritual order intensified the nature of revolutionary injustice (119-123, here he paraphrases Athanasius speaking to the Arians). Chrysostom also (Commentary on Galations, chapter 1) warned the civil rulers against attempting to alter the dogmas of the Catholic faith (123).

Looking at history, the Pope recognized that in various times and countries there have been and will be political revolutions. He also knew that there have been and will be efforts made by revolutionaries to make the Church conform to their ideas of religion. There is always the potential error of the political regime to impose its principles on the Church. The Church has always resisted such efforts so that it could maintain the freedom to protect and spread its doctrine. The potential danger that the Pope sees emerging as societies fall to democratic revolutions will be an attempt to create democratic Churches to conform to the democratic political structures and cultures that typify democratic regimes. The Pope understood the freedom that a society had to adopt a democratic political regime. He also understood that such a regime would try to influence and control the Church first of all by making it reflect the democratic ideology.

After establishing the principles, Pius VI applied them to the case at hand. The revolutionaries “attributed to themselves the spiritual power and make new rules that are contrary to [the] dogma and discipline [of the Catholic Church]. The Constitution also requires priests and Bishops to take an oath of loyalty to the Constitution that changes the dogma and discipline of the Church (123-125). The Pope concludes: “the necessary effect of this constitution is to destroy the Catholic religion.” (125). For the state to control the teaching of the Church, how to regulate its priests, and how to determine their pastoral mission would be to negate the Church. He understood that to do this would over time destroy the principle of unity that enabled the Church to preserve and spread the sacraments to the individuals who are in need of the fountains of mercy.

Final Words Before the Storm

By January 1791, a storm was on the rise, King Louis XVI had approved the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and De Lomenie had taken the oath. Pius VI counseled De Lomenie to retract his oath. Hoping he would follow the example of Beckett.

The Pope reminded de Lomenie that to fail to resist evildoers is to encourage them. Thomas Beckett showed this well in letters he wrote to his fellow bishops. Gesturing to the example of Beckett, Pius VI hopes that De Lomenie will act and speak in a way that recognizes the freedom of the Church vis a vis the State. If the State is committing a crime, someone must call that crime a crime. There is a point at which a person must show himself to be an opponent of a crime, otherwise, one becomes complicit in the crime. In short, the Pope urged de Lomenie not to fall into the hands of those who “under the pretext of reforming religion,… are actually looking for ways to sap it of the foundation of the Catholic faith and of the religion of our Fathers” (103).