Reverend Father Christopher Hunter

THERE has always been a deep-seated instinct among American Catholics that the men who gave us our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were men raised up and inspired by Almighty God for this purpose. Not surprisingly then, American Catholics have had great veneration for our Founding Fathers and the principles they left us in their two great documents which gave birth to our Republic. The Fourth of July was always our most important civil holiday with the greatest display of the American spirit reserved for the anniversary of our break with the British monarchy.

This, as I say, has always been the traditional attitude. In recent years however, and especially among some traditional Catholics, a new attitude is making itself felt. That attitude is the belief that the Founding Fathers, not being Catholic, gave us a form of government imbued with Protestant ideas and, even worse, may have been Masonically-inclined due to the intellectual climate of the day, formed by the ideas of the Enlightenment and the egalitarian spirit of the French Revolution. Some even write strange little papers on the Masonic membership of the Patriots of 1776 who, after dumping British tea into Boston Harbor, retired to the infamous Green Dragon Tavern to enjoy the camaraderie of their "brother" Masons over a brew. All of which doesn't prove anything but, instead, raises some difficulties for the compilers of such stuff, if they would stop to think for a minute. Such writers have more regard for their own discoveries than they do with either historical accuracy or the Catholic Faith they claim to be defending by publishing these revelations.

Such stories may sell publications, and satisfy the writer that he has struck another blow against the enemies of God, but one is reminded of Nester Webster's comment about Carlyle's account of the French Revolution, that it "may make for interesting reading but it is not good history." Such writings widely distributed become themselves subversive and lend a helping hand to those who are dedicated to our destruction.

The fact is, a serious and thorough study of Catholic sources proves that the American form of government is Catholic in both its origin and completed form. As the Catholic Almanac of 1948 states, in referring to the Declaration of Independence: "A study of its philosophical principles reveals them to be derived from the traditional stream of Catholic philosophy. These principles where found in the works of non-Catholic writers are but a borrowing of Catholic doctrine."

One of the best expressions of Catholic sentiment toward our form of government can be found in a statement made by the American Bishops in 1884 when, in speaking of the duties of Patriotism they said:

This statement of the bishops was not pious patriotism or mere sentimentality. It was based on a clear understanding of the foundations of our constitutional form of government. The men of a hundred years ago were generally better educated than the men of today, especially among the hierarchy of the Church. They were not likely to be ignorant of things inimical to the Church, especially during the nineteenth century when there were periodic outbreaks of anti-Catholic sentiments.

Some reasons why the bishops could speak as they did are given below. They provide some of the knowledge necessary for an understanding of just what is involved in a discussion of the influences on the American form of government. Let us begin with Thomas Jefferson whose influence is most prominent in the Declaration of Independence.

JEFFERSON

In 1680 a work was published entitled Patriarcha, written by Robert Filmer, attacking the idea of popular sovereignty in defense of the divine right of kings. In defending his thesis, Filmer attacked the contrary position, the best expression of which he found in De Laicis of Cardinal Bellarmine:

Thomas Jefferson was later to write: "…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Jefferson had a copy of Filmer in his library and it was Jefferson's habit to underscore those parts of a book that he liked. The only passage so marked in Filmer's book was this quotation from Bellarmine.

Not surprisingly then, has Dr. James Brown Scott of the Carnegie Foundation written: "If we of the United States were to have a patron—and in our case a political saint—(Protestant though we be), we might indeed do well to choose the Cardinal and sainted Bellarmine who, strange as it may seem, has perhaps the greatest claim to the gratitude of the people of the United States, because he stated and defended in advance those principles of government which the United States have made their own and upon which their government firmly rests."

Other parallels between the writings of Jefferson and St. Robert Bellarmine are not wanting which further illustrate this point:

—Declaration of Independence:

Confirmation of Jefferson's thinking in the Declaration of Independence can also be found in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas:

At this point the reader should be able to see more clearly just what the source of America's greatness has been and why we have long been the envy of nations, and attracted others to our shores. Likewise, the great abundance and wealth of America can be traced to our Catholic foundations for, as Pope Leo XIII tells us in Rerum Novarum, "…an abundance of corporeal and external goods is likewise a characteristic of a well constituted state, the use of which goods is necessary for the practice of virtue" (p. 51).

Bishop Fulton Sheen, in his book Freedom Under God attacks the idea that the American Constitution is an expression of the individualism of the Enlightenment. He tells us, among other things:

One of America's most outstanding Catholic scholars was Dr. James J. Walsh (1865-1942). He graduated from Fordham at age nineteen, spent six years with the Jesuits in the study of philosophy, preparatory to entering the Order, which, however, illness prevented him from doing. He studied at the Universities of Paris, Vienna and Berlin, and won a number of awards for his many contributions to Catholic literature. Dr. Walsh authored one book a year for forty years but is probably best remembered for his work The Thirteenth and Greatest of Centuries.

Walsh had a particular love for Catholic history and in 1935, Fordham University Press published his Education of the Founding Fathers of the Republic: A Neglected Chapter in the History of American Education. This relatively unknown work is extremely valuable for the great light it throws on the intellectual influences on our Founding Fathers.

In the preface to his book, Dr. Walsh writes that Scholasticism "is usually thought to have gone out of vogue at the end of the Middle Ages or to have disappeared with the New Learning at the Reformation. That almost universal impression is entirely mistaken. The proof of the serious fallacy that has gained acceptance in this matter is to be found in the easily ascertainable fact that Scholastism continued to be the philosophic teaching of European but also American universities and colleges down well into the nineteenth century."

Scholastism, the reader may recall, means simply the philosophy of the monastic schools during the Middle Ages. Based on academic traditions formed by Boethius, developed under St. Anselm in the eleventh century, it reached its highest expression in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. It is that form of education which is uniquely Catholic and provided the intellectual foundation of the West. Yet, as Walsh points out, the fact of its existence in the American schools in which the Founding Fathers were educated in is "little appreciated" and "strangely neglected." Nearly half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence (twenty-seven), graduated from either European or American colleges and the caliber of the men who likewise took part in the Constitutional Convention was no less impressive than those who signed the Declaration of Independence, eight of whom took part in both.

Walsh's conclusions were based on his study of the commencement theses that had to be defended by the candidates for their degree. Sometimes erroneously considered to be commencement programs, they were an intellectual challenge to the learned community by the graduating bachelors. It consisted of a set of propositions to be proven syllogistically by any of the candidates and then "manfully defended against any objection that might be urged in contradiction or impugnment of them."

Not satisfied with his own conclusions, Walsh sent copies of his manuscript to a number of priests in both the United States and Canada for their comments. The responses he received were most interesting and completely supportive of Walsh's findings. A few will be noted here:

1. Rev. John Ryan, Professor of Ethics, Catholic University:

2. Rev. John X. Pyne, S.J., Professor of Philosophy, Fordham:

3. Rev. Lucian Johnston, Professor of Philosophy, College of Notre Dame at Baltimore:

Dr. Walsh also sent a copy of his manuscript to Father Chenu, Director of the Institute of Medieval Studies at Ottawa, because, in his words, "The French have often differed from the rest of the Catholic world on many thoughtful subjects and especially with regard to philosophy." Father Chenu's reply: "Your study on Scholasticism in the colonial colleges is a very curious document for the history of education; all these theses are pure Scholastic formulas."

So we see that Walsh's conclusions are not opinions, theories, or guesswork, but conclusions which, when studied by other Catholic authorities, proves that the educational and intellectual influences on the Founding Fathers were essentially Catholic. Walsh's findings therefore give firm support for those Catholic instincts referred to at the beginning of this article.¹

Those who like to find fault with the Constitution generally refer to Article One of the Bill of Rights which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" The objection to this stems from Catholic teaching that such an idea is distinctly anti-Catholic since no such separation is possible as God is the Source of all authority and therefore the state must publicly affirm this. Jesus Christ is King and His sovereignty over the affairs of men must be acknowledged by legislators.

Unfortunately, the failure to make some necessary distinctions and a certain ignorance of history have encouraged the idea that this provision of the Bill of Rights stands condemned as is.

Oddly enough if this were such a glaring error, a direct slap in the face of Catholics, it has escaped our attention, for it is quite clear that there has been an unbroken tradition for two hundred years of enthusiastic Catholic endorsement and approval for Article One. Would not a loud cry of protest been issued long ago by the bishops and priests of America, warning Catholics against such a provision and urging upon them a movement for its repeal? Are we to believe now that the American Catholic Church was so populated by ignorant or liberal elements that this great anti-Catholic provision was somehow put over on an unsuspecting Catholic public?

Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Longinqua Oceani, did warn Americans that it would be wrong to consider the situation of the Church in America "the type of the most desirable status of the Church…separated and divorced." And he is, of course, correct. And there is no true Catholic alive who does not yearn for "one fold and one shepherd" where all are bound together by the doctrine of our holy Catholic religion and united under one visible head, the Pope of Rome, Christ's Vicar on earth. But if the status of the Church in America is not ideal then neither was the religious composition of the colonial population ideal which would have allowed for an official Catholic religion.

Lacking the elements for a formally Catholic state, the Founding Fathers had to deal with the realities of the situation which confronted them and were forced to devise a practical and expedient policy that would remove the causes of religious conflict and "ensure domestic tranquility." That solution was Article One of the Constitution.

In a country where Catholics were a distinct minority and a public profession of one's faith was a guarantee of becoming a disenfranchised citizen with no voice in political affairs, they often became the object of persecution in one form or another. No Catholic writer of these times has ever hesitated to accurately depict the second-class status of Catholics in Colonial America. With Protestantism having the upper hand therefore, it should not be hard to understand why Catholics eagerly supported any provision in the newly-formed government that released them from their unenviable situation. Article One of the Bill of Rights, not at all surprisingly, was much favored by Catholics, for it removed all forms of public discrimination and opened the way for Catholics to serve in government with the disappearance of religious tests as a qualification for holding public office.

Not only was the First Amendment supported by Catholics, but its very formation was largely due to the influence of Daniel Carroll.

THE CARROLLS

Daniel Carroll (1730-1796) was one of the most influential men of his day although the fame of his brother Charles has somewhat overshadowed him. An active partisan of the move for independence, Daniel was educated from the ages of twelve to eighteen at the English Jesuit College of St. Omar in French Flanders.

Daniel Carroll's significance for us lies in the fact that he was probably the single most important influence in formulating Article One of the Bill of Rights. Thus, those who wish to criticize the First Article of the Bill of Rights must criticize a fellow Catholic, educated by Jesuits in Europe, for its so-called "Protestant influence."

Carroll's remarks on the Constitution are very worthwhile since he actively took part in its formulation as a delegate from Maryland. He looked at it from a Catholic point of view and, on October 16, 1787, wrote:

Carroll did not enumerate what the errors were but they could not have been very great since he did not hesitate to give the Constitution his strongest possible endorsement.

Incidentally, before leaving the Carrolls, it is worth mentioning that Daniel's cousin, Charles, is credited with giving us the electoral system for the election of presidents. Charles based it on the way the College of Cardinals elects the Pope!

Another consideration that is invariably overlooked in this discussion is that the federal government is a government of delegated powers which means, quite simply, that the federal government cannot do what it was not given the power to do. The states gave their consent, and thus the power, to the government to carry out its functions. Not transferred to it was the power to legislate the internal affairs of the states or, what Jefferson called "their domestic concerns" such as religion and education.

Since the United States is based on the idea of individual state governments that would legislate in their respective areas—as opposed to one strong centralized government running the whole country—the states therefore would determine their internal affairs with regard to things such as religion. In other words, the prohibition against establishing a religion is a prohibition against the federal government not the state governments. If individual states wanted a state religion they could have one and, indeed, three states did have established churches long after 1789. New Hampshire kept theirs until 1817, Connecticut until 1818, and Massachusetts until 1833.

Such powers, then, were retained by the states and Article One simply served notice that certain powers residing in the states were not being transferred to the Congress of the United States.

Failure to understand this simple point has allowed some to mislead and confuse others into thinking what is not true about the nature and purpose of our Constitution. In any event, it should be quite easy to see why Catholics supported this amendment right from the start, since there were five states with established churches before 1789, Catholics were taxed to support them but Article One did away with this offensive situation.

Before concluding this article, there is one final matter I wish to deal with. While not directly related to the Declaration of Independence of the Constitution, it is a charge almost always raised by those who like to find things to criticize about our form of government since it seems to further vindicate the "evil" inherent in America's beginnings. That charge is that "George Washington was a Mason."

WASHINGTON

To begin with, such chroniclers who assert this (and they usually assert it with great authority!) are proving their willingness to believe Masonic sources as if these same Masons were pillars of honesty and would never mislead us in matters that might be self-serving.

The Masons, of course, love to claim our first President as their own, often depicting him in full Masonic regalia, laying the foundation stone for certain public buildings in our Nation's capital. But if ever there was a classic example of a half-truth, this is it! I will let the reader determine if it is either fair or accurate to call our first President a Mason.

Washington took the first degree of Masonry in 1752, at the age of twenty, at Fredericksburg, Virginia. In the following year he took the second and third degrees at the same place. What the Masons don't bother to mention is, that after 1753, Washington never practiced Masonry. On September 25, 1798, Washington wrote that he had not set foot in a Masonic Lodge "more than once or twice in the last thirty years," or that he told his aide-de-camp that Masonry was "for the most part child's play," and that "it might be used for the worst of purposes."

Nor are we told that Washington died a Catholic. The facts concerning this have been well publicized and would seem to leave little room for doubt.

Four hours before Washington's death, Fr. Leonard Neale, S.J., was called to Mount Vernon from St. Mary's Mission across the Piscatawney River, where he baptized President Washington.

There is little reason to doubt the report of Washington's deathbed conversion since his Negro slaves, who testified to it, were not Catholic. In fact, it is reported that "weeping and wailing occurred in the quarters that Massa Washington had been snared by the Scarlet Woman of Rome…" In addition, it is reported that Washington made the Sign of the Cross before meals. He is also known to have attended High Mass on occasion in old St. Mary's Church in Philadelphia.

After his death, a picture of the Blessed Mother was found among his effects which, I am told, today hangs in his home, Mt. Vernon.

It was of George Washington that the Catholic Cecil Chesterton was speaking when he wrote: "It may be justly said of him, as it can be said of few of the great men who have molded the destinies of nations, that history can put its finger on no act of his and say, 'Here this man was preferring his own interest to his country's'."

Such are the facts that must be taken into account concerning America's political beginnings. Dr. Walsh was always fond of saying that: "Facts are truth, but facts are not truth unless you have all the facts." What I have put down here are those facts necessary to have a complete picture of the influences on the men who gave us the two documents upon which the United States was founded.

If Catholics believe it important to honor their Church by demonstrating its powerful influence upon the minds of men, then they should rejoice that in otherwise Protestant America, Catholic principles triumphed at the beginning!