Contra Lazar: Is America Really a Christian Nation?

Beginning with principles, rather than sentiment, reveals the fundamental problems with the American system; an unhappy conclusion, perhaps, but no less true for Catholics

A recent exchange on X (formerly Twitter) with Gideon Lazar prompted me to write the following essay. It is by no means a fully-developed critique, which would also need to encompass the burgeoning movement of what I termed ‘neo-Americanists’.¹ A group of modern Catholics who attempt to downplay—even ignore—the substantial incompatibility of the founding spirit, principles and aims of the American founders with Roman Catholicism. To stress, it is not merely an accidental incompatibility. The men in this camp claim to be motivated by a love of the American patrimony, which there is no reason to doubt, but they unfortunately have a tendency to exaggerate the good aspects of America, while minimizing the (considerable) bad aspects. Other times, they make tenuous claims about the founding, as they try and paint a rosier picture of the beginnings of our dear country than what transpired. Whitewashing revolutionism is never a good idea.

The set of errors seems to be generated—to some extent—as a reaction to traditionalist critiques, which sometimes err in the opposite direction. Critiques of America, from a Catholic perspective, that are, perhaps, too harsh. Directionally, these are correct, but their presentation can be needlessly inflammatory, or make it seem like reforming America is a hopeless task. The latter is not true, and we know from the words of Our Lord (Matt. 19:26) “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” Our duty, then, is a true and lasting reform of America, which must be at a foundational level, despite the obvious difficulty.

Before overviewing the chronology of the exchange with Mr. Lazar, I would like to draw the attention of the reader to a penetrating essay by Bp. Donald Sanborn, written in 1995 and entitled The Cult of Liberty. What is illuminating is the outsized influence of Freemasonry, an avowed and perennial enemy of the Catholic Church, in the early days of our country. The sect, itself, has more or less receded in power as an organization, yet its deadly principles and animating spirit continues to dominate American thinking and culture. The essay is a good primer for those looking to critically examine our country, importantly through the eyes of faith. More than anything, the reader will grasp the true notions of liberty and freedom, according to the mind and philosophy of the Catholic Church, rather than the disordered American understanding. The popular objection that Catholic critics of our country are engaging in “America bashing” is also answered, very well by Sanborn.

Exchange Chronology

Our original back and forth began with my replying to a post from Lazar in which he was attempting to position America as an example of a ‘Christian nation’—presumably as true in his mind. Does it sink with reality, however?

The original is reproduced below, noting the triumphalist tone.

In my reply, I drew attention, in a non-exhaustive way, to ten errors that would make it impossible to say America is [or ever was] a Christian nation.

• An indifferentist State, at the federal level²

• Failure of the State to recognize the rights of the Catholic Church

• Individualism and skepticism of authority

• Freedom of speech

• Freedom of the press

• Prohibition of religious tests for public office

• Masonic and liberal (read false) understanding of liberty

• Authority derives from the consent of the governed, as opposed to God

• So-called right to revolution

• Pervasive naturalism, infecting culture and civic life

Reflecting, the next day, on the disagreement led me to compose the following:

The principles that animated the American revolution and founding are no less deadly than those of the French revolution. In some respects, they are more evil. The reason being that the former, uniquely, are an insidious evil, not the honest, so to speak, evil found in the French experiment. In the same way that communism, which is easily recognizable and nearly-always violent, is less dangerous than liberalism, which has a veneer of respectability and a subtlety that can go undetected. Mass executions of clergy and religious, followed by anti-Catholic legislation are easy to see. What is harder to detect, much less combat, is naturalism, inflamed by an individualistic and capitalistic spirit, preaching rights for true and false religion, alike. Both systems of revolution, importantly, share the same, underlying anti-Catholic principles.

There is a soft Americanism that is being pushed by (no doubt) well-intentioned persons. It is an error, not rising to heresy, certainly. The position is largely attitudinal, but its doctrine consists in key omissions. It is still trying to marry the American spirit and project with Roman Catholicism—which does not, nor cannot, work. Counterrevolution, conspicuously, does not apply to America in their minds. The only antidote is an un-doing, in a fundamental way, of the American founding and constitution. Using legal means, of course. Not only is accidental reform of America ineffective (history has borne this out), it is wrong in principle.

Still approaching my long critique, which will be the body of this post, Lazar responded by doubling down, and his full post is captured below. Granted, he does make two good points, namely that not all praise of America is to be classified as Americanism, agreed, and that some traditionalist critiques go too far, in a way; again, agreed. That said, as will be evidenced below, both miss the main arguments that I am advancing. Ultimately, they are beside the point.

What the Neo-Americanist Camp Gets Wrong, Usually by Omission

Now, the full response to Mr. Lazar, which is aimed at his public positions, sometimes implied, but not against his person. Hopefully, this post will succeed in offering dispassionate, serious criticism of the ideas he is advancing. The full text, below, is reproduced, with only minor stylistic changes and sharpening of arguments. In substance, it remains the same challenge to him seen on X. Additionally, for the benefit of the reader, I have added exact citations of the quoted magisterial texts, along with relevant portions from Catholic philosophical manuals.

One other thing: Pope Leo XIII, ironically championed by this very crowd, cuts against their arguments, rather than helping them. He will be quoted extensively below. His qualified admiration of America, particularly with the benefit of hindsight, was rightfully measured, and not categorical. If the plague of modern errors was as dire as the Church warned back then, how much more so would it be today? The record of history only confirms this. America was not immune to these deep errors then, nor is she now.

Link to the original post on X.

Opening

Again, I do not think you understand my criticism, especially given that your original position, “the United States is [has been] a Christian nation”, is provably false. This is chiefly what I took issue with. Your posting this quotation from Justice Brewer implies this as your position, where you seem to substantially agree with his remarks.

The following will not only demonstrate this claim as untrue, but draw attention to the conspicuous omissions of the (what might be termed) soft or ‘neo-Americanists’, whose error is primarily attitudinal, combined with failing to appreciate the—often hidden—dangers of secularism, individualism and Freemasonry. Worth repeating is that I consider this an error, but nearly always made in good faith, and certainly not worthy of the censure of heresy. As an aside, the prevailing and original intentions of the American revolutionaries (as a moral body) will be the authentic interpretation of the aims, laws and spirit of the American project.

Finally, you are right to identify certain strains of traditionalist thought as erring into excesses in their criticisms of our dear country. At some point, I have been guilty of this—to an extent. Surely, it can be understood, though, given it is largely a response to the prevailing error of our day which is its exact opposite, a deficiency in sober criticism of the truly evil principles that underlie the American project and culture. Yes, evil principles. This does not mean that America lacks considerable strengths or admirable traits, she does—although fewer and fewer with each passing decade. Regardless, we should agree that Catholics, in either camp, by and large, are of good will. The question, then, is which position coheres more closely with reality and the teaching of the Church?

Demonstration

Proof I.

First, the only Christianity worthy of its name is Catholicism. No surprise. Protestantism is a system of heresy and, as a matter of right, has no claim to the title of ‘Christianity’. In his catechism, Doctor and Saint of the Church, Peter Canisius, answered who is to be called a Christian (in an unqualified or true way), thusly, “He who confesses the doctrine of Jesus Christ in his Church. Hence, he who is truly a Christian thoroughly detests all cults and sects found outside the doctrine and outside the Church of Christ, everywhere and among all peoples, as for example the Jewish, the Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects.”³ This goes without saying, but America was not founded as a Catholic nation. Great pains were taken to avoid a Catholic confessional state, in fact, at the state and especially the federal level. Therefore, in a very simple argument, America was not founded as a Christian nation. What is more, the constitution, distinct from the subsequent Bill of Rights, also expressly forbids the employment of religious tests as a requirement for holding public office. Again, no Catholic can countenance this American ideal. This prohibition and other related liberal and enlightenment measures continue to cause big problems in our country.

Another issue, unfortunately plaguing American laymen and the hierarchy, alike, is the equivocal use of ‘Christian’, referring to both Protestants and Catholics, without distinction. The same could be said of ‘religion’, whether Catholic religion, Christianity, or Protestant religion, a system of disjointed heresies, bad philosophy and, frankly, historical ignorance. German Catholic immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century are probably the only exception. The liberal bloc of Irish, opposed to the integralist Germans, eventually did win out. Archbishop Ireland and Cardinal Gibbons were notable examples of the former group, spearheading the Americanist movement—eventually condemned as a heresy in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae by Pope Leo XIII.

Practically speaking, this produced the effect of blurring the distinction between true and false religion, particularly for the young and unlearned. If the twentieth century has proven anything, it is that indifferentism, or even its appearance, is to be altogether avoided.⁴ The cause of this implicit American indifferentism, on the part of Catholics, was wanting to be considered ‘good Americans’, before being good Catholics—but to achieve the latter is to exclude the former, as it has always been understood. Arguing too much? Try condemning any of the cherished American ideals (e.g. individualism, religious freedom, freedom of conscience, laissez-faire capitalism, enlightenment ‘right’ to revolution, freedom of speech, etc.) with the fervor of the fiercely anti-liberal popes, Pius IX, Gregory XVI or St. Pius X, and watch the reaction. The listener will be sure remind you this is opposed, fundamentally, to what it means to “be a good American”. Reassure him that he is correct. Nevertheless, to be a good American—distinct from how our culture, past and present, understands it—in a true sense, is what we all must pursue. Patriotism is a virtue,⁵ and it includes identifying and correcting the bad aspects of a man’s country, while cultivating and promoting the good aspects. Very clearly then, on this count, understood by Justice Brewer and certainly the founders as a moral body, the claim of ‘Christian nation’ fails under basic, Catholic scrutiny.

Proof II.

Secondly, a true Christian nation (State) will always offer public recognition, worship and obedience to God and the religion He revealed. This religion must be Catholicism, as it is uniquely true. As Pope Leo XIII explained in his encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, detailing the nature of human liberty, “Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness—namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it.”⁶ Yet the American state, or country as we call it, has always been godless by this definition. In principle, the federal government has been and always will be indifferentist, that is, both unable and unwilling to discern between true and false religion, between any religion and atheism. This is central to American political life.

What about the individual states? A grim picture, they were not much better, and certainly not today. In a different encyclical, Longinqua, the same Pope cautioned, “[I]t would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.”⁷ Have the warnings of the Holy Father come true? Has admitting the freedom of religion, in the liberal and condemned sense, ended in godlessness? Every honest man knows the answer. Even if the State were to give ‘rights’ to both Catholicism and Protestantism, implicitly equating truth and error, it would still be the same false principle. This is because rights (considered in their subjective sense) are specified by their object: which is always objective truth and goodness. Rights must flow from justice, being moral powers.⁸ Conversely, error has no rights, even if its exponent is sincere. The interior disposition of the man in error does not matter, objectively.

Further, the civil law cannot sanction this false notion of rights—which is merely license in matters of religion and morals. This time in Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII admonishes, “Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option… If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law.”⁹ What follows is that the American ideals are repugnant to mere reason. Yet religious freedom and the liberty of conscience (in the external forum, pertaining to religion and morals) are celebrated, it is what people took pride in then, and today.

The opponent may respond: the American project put forward a (true) toleration of false religions, but this is also not the case. Not only does toleration presuppose an evil, which the founders ignored, but tolerating false religions can only be justified for the sake of the common good, either to prevent a greater evil or to secure some greater good.¹⁰ Continuing, the indifferent State, which we see in America, is identified by Pope Leo XIII as the “legal apostasy of society”.¹¹ Truly, what could possibly be worse? In short, the claim of ‘Christian nation’ fails, yet again, as even natural reason—without the illumination of faith—recognizes the duty of the State to worship God in the true religion.

Conclusion

There is important missing context with the arguments of the neo-Americanists. It is claimed that Pope Leo XIII praised America in many respects, which is true. You could even say he was an admirer. However, it was always qualified, not categorical. It could not have been otherwise. Catholic orthodoxy does not permit it.

Most importantly, the successes of the Catholic Church in America were entirely accidental—continuing in the present, notwithstanding the apostasy after Vatican II—to the enlightenment system enshrined at the founding. Returning to Longinqua, the pope confirms this principle, observing, “The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.”¹² Put differently, the freedom of the Church came at a high price. It would be hard to argue, today, it has not cost America her soul. For us, it has meant a severing of the union of Church and State, refusing obedience to the rights of God, and enshrining a ‘civil right’ to be a deist, atheist, Protestant, Muslim or Jew. In totality, a repudiation of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, in principle and proudly.

Yes, here is where the crime of omission of the neo-Americanists is most subtle, more dangerous, than a crime of commission. The present immorality, godlessness and selfishness is a direct consequence of this system of political atheism, enshrined in the very fabric and culture of America—whether we like it or not. Absent the favor and protection of public law, what is left of good morals quickly becomes corrupted.¹³ We see this today. This is why the problem of our dear country is not merely a matter of changing a law here, or a law there. It is not accidental, but substantial, even essential. The problem is a complete and systematic rejection, disguised in high-sounding language, of the Catholic principles which must govern a state.

Reform then, must be proportionate. The truth demands it, and America needs real, fundamental change.

---

---

CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN REFORM!

As I intend to devote more and more time to this political project, I want to continue to provide free, educational material, whether visual (edits) or written (essays, translations and a forthcoming book) content. If you have benefited from my work in any way, kindly consider supporting the journal financially. On a personal note, I am married and duty-bound to provide for my family, so any help, big or small, is appreciated. Subscribe or make a one-time donation.

Regardless, the production of free material will continue, hopefully with ever-increasing quality, and I will keep all my subscribers notified of my plans.

In addition to Substack, the home of the journal, my work, graphics and commentary can be found on the following platforms:

X (formerly Twitter): @AmericanReform_

Telegram: @American_Reform

1. My suspicion is this term has already been coined, but I do not know where or by whom. Regardless, it seemed a fitting descriptor. Often, a system of error, once condemned by the Authority of the Church, reemerges in more moderate, subtler forms.

2. CORRECTION — Originally, the first bulleted point and underlying X post said “State atheism at the federal level”. This is not accurate and so the term has been replaced with the correct one, “An indifferentist State”. Nevertheless, the indifferentist State inexorably leads to the atheistic State.

3. A Sum of Christian Doctrine, Catechism of St. Peter Canisius, pub. 1622, pg. 19.

4. The systematic refutation of this indifferentist system, in both civil and religious matters, can be found in the encyclicals Notre Charge Apostolique and Mortalium Animos. They were promulgated by Pope St. Pius X (1910) and Pope Pius XI (1928), respectively.

5. The Framework of a Christian State, Rev. Edward Cahill, S.J., pub. 1932, pgs. 573-99.

6. Libertas Praestantissimum, Pope Leo XIII, prom. 1888, no. 21.

7. Longinqua, Pope Leo XIII, prom. 1895, no. 6.

8. Ethics, Msgr. Paul Glenn, pub. 1930, pgs. 135-42.

9. Immortale Dei, Pope Leo XIII, prom. 1885, no. 32.

10. Libertas Praestantissimum, no. 33.

11. El Giunto, Pope Leo XIII, pub. 1889, para. 5.

12. Longinqua, no. 6.

13. Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, prom. 1952, no. 3.