The Lantern

Anthropic's Pope Series Part 2: The Scene

Watchlight Media — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:31:44 GMT

The first encyclical of the papal reign of Leo XIV has been well received and lauded for it’s stances against the “AI” oligarchy. When read with a democratic, religious liberty lens and a separation of church and state focus, something more emerges that is less laudable and more dangerous.

This series is based on the longform analysis Anthropic’s Pope: Magnifica Humanitas is a Blueprint for a Christian Nation. Split into smaller segments we’ve made the piece more digestible for people pressed for time.

We’ll also feature Anthropic’s Pope on The Beacon podcast Fathom so watch for that too.

Understanding the Scene

Magnifica Humanitas means “magnificent humanity” in Latin. Though the Genesis creation and man being made in the image of God is alluded to in the letter it is not foundational for his argument of human worth.

His ideas owe more to Greek philosophy, church tradition, and Christian humanism than to Scripture. Many may not be accustomed to thinking about humanism within the context of Catholicism but its all through out the letter. “Humanism” is an important framework for understanding what is actually being proposed in this encyclical.

What is an encyclical?

“According to its etymology, an encyclical (from the Greek egkyklios, kyklos meaning a circle) is nothing more than a circular letter. In modern times, usage has confined the term almost exclusively to certain papal documents which differ in their technical form from the ordinary style of either Bulls or Briefs, and which in their superscription are explicitly addressed to the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops of the Universal Church in communion with the Apostolic See.”—Catholic Answers

It is an imitation of the epistles or letters of the New Testament by the apostles such as Peter and Paul.

Leo made papal history by being the first to personally present an encyclical. It would be difficult to overestimate the significance of this event and Magnifica Humanitas’s to his church and the assemblage of prelates.

But Leo wasn’t just talking to his church,

Section 16: “I address this heartfelt appeal to all the Catholic faithful, to all Christians and to all men and women of goodwill. Let us not be afraid to get our hands dirty on the ‘construction site’ of our time.”

He wants us all building together according to this blueprint.

The letter was released on the 135th anniversary of the publication of Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum novarum, which addressed challenges wrought by industrialization.

While this isn’t the first time he’s commented on “AI”, in Magnifica Humanitas Leo marks the importance of his timing,

“We are living through a rapid phase of transition, a “change of era,” in which — while some are vying for the future of new technologies and others dedicate themselves to reflecting on the matter — most people are watching and waiting, observing from afar and merely hoping for the best. For this very reason, crucial questions impose themselves on our conscience and can no longer be avoided: Where are we going? Toward what goal do we wish to orient ourselves? What direction should we choose as a people and as a human community?”—Section 6, Magnifica Humanitas

These are all poignant questions of global significance.

The invited speakers for the announcement were carefully chosen so as to support his arguments. Two women, both professors with expertise in Catholic Social Doctrine, were featured. One of the women was from Congo, highlighting the much talked about and misunderstood “apology for slavery.”

A cardinal from Doctrine of Faith (formerly the Office of the Inquisition) and a co-founder of Anthropic Christopher Olah, who also happens to be atheist, were there too. Olah made a statement during the program which is unusual because the Vatican usually doesn’t invite outsiders to speak.

All of them have spoken and written (some at length) on a form of humanism, whether Christian or secular. Anthropic claims to want to center human needs and safety in their quest to make Claude “helpful.” The company and the church seem completely aligned.

Irony or Hypocrisy?

It is revealing what the Anthropic and Leo focused on soon after the public event presenting the encyclical which centers its arguments around prioritizing the poor and powerless:

Anthropic announced a nearly trillion dollar valuation after raising $65 billion dollars.

On June 10th, Leo visited and blessed Sagrada Família, a church in Spain that’s been under construction since 1882 and is still not close to finished.

There is an irony of him blessing an incomplete structure of high towers and immense scale that seems to celebrate human achievement over humility after warning the world against “Babel syndrome” (Section 10 of the encyclical).

As the tallest church in Europe it certain has “made a name” for the church on the continent. Some acknowledge similarities of the two projects while dismissing them but the willful contradiction should not be ignored. It’s an unmistakable and recurring pattern.

Cheat Codes

To understand Magnifica Humanitas and what it is trying to accomplish there are a few helpful things to know:

Karen Hao’s Empire of AI was the first serious effort to trace the roots and motivations of the companies and personalities driving the development and adopt of “AI.” She says emphatically that they are building empires to rule over us not to make the world better or our jobs easier. Popes have always taken special interest in influencing empires.
The Vatican sees “AI” as a rising influence and those makers and owners of it as new power players in geopolitical and global economic affairs.
Anthropic’s “Claude Constitution”

“The document is written with Claude as its primary audience, so it might read differently than you’d expect. For example, it’s optimized for precision over accessibility, and it covers various topics that may be of less interest to human readers. We also discuss Claude in terms normally reserved for humans (e.g., “virtue,” “wisdom”).

“We do this because we expect Claude’s reasoning to draw on human concepts by default, given the role of human text in Claude’s training; and we think encouraging Claude to embrace certain human-like qualities may be actively desirable.”

Anthropic as a company takes the position that Claude is a new kind of consciousness, though they’re not sure and it may be dangerous, they’ve assigned themselves as guardians and makers of “good ‘AI’ ”to counteract “bad ‘AI’ ” made by nation states like China, companies like OpenAI or Google and individuals like Elon Musk.

“Powerful AI models will be a new kind of force in the world, and people creating them have a chance to help them embody the best in humanity. We hope this constitution is a step in that direction.”

The company also says,

“We want Claude to have good values and be a good AI assistant, in the same way that a person can have good personal values while also being extremely good at their job. Perhaps the simplest summary is that we want Claude to be exceptionally helpful while also being honest, thoughtful, and caring about the world.” (Notice the anthropomorphic language)

In 2020 the Catholic Church issued what they refer to as the “Rome Call for AI Ethics.” They highlight three major areas of concern (ethics, education, and rights) and six principles. So institutionally this church has been working to influence the direction of “AI” well before ChatGPT’s debut in November 2022.
If you read this “Rome call” (which is very brief) and the summary of Claude’s constitution you will understand the vast majority of what Leo says in his encyclical on “AI.” Much of his analysis of “AI” and his priorities for the technology are right in line with how Anthropic describes its model.

Leo says it is something “cultivated” (Section 98) using organic terms and broadly reflecting what Anthropic says it’s working toward on the technology front.

But this encyclical really isn’t so much about “AI” as it is about offering an alternative vision of global and local governance. Leo is offering himself and his church as the guide for humanity into a new era based on Catholic Social Doctrine. And while “AI” is the nominal reason for the letter the arguments go much further.

It is a subtler, more tactful version of “The Syllabus of Errors” sharing a similar disposition to rival philosophies but switching out (most) of the sticks for carrots.

There is a war stratagem often called “point at the mulberry and curse the locust” where you criticize more powerful players by using analogy or a stand-in to undermine an opponent without direct confrontation.

That’s what this letter feels like: using the problems and chaos caused or worsened by the careless distribution of “AI” as an opportunity to present an alternative to secular democracy and offering a sectarian alternative: the social doctrine of the Roman Church.

So while to some it appears the church was somehow used by Anthropic for a PR coup that notion underestimates an institution that’s been around for more than 1500 years (we start the clock around Constantine or maybe 535 AD when the institutional Christian church merged with the state).

This letter puts the church in the conversation on the side of the “good guys” as a good faith critic of “AI.” But reading the encyclical carefully you see there are much more distant fences its swinging toward. Only about 40 of the 245 sections deal expansively with artificial intelligence and he brings very little new to that discussion.

So what are the other 205 sections about?

Thanks for reading The Lantern! This post is public so feel free to share it.

The Silence of Obadiah, The Isolation of Elijah: This Moment Requires More of Us

Watchlight Media — Tue, 07 Jul 2026 03:57:25 GMT

Introduction

Welcome to The Beacon, a podcast network of Watchlight Media, which is dedicated to the principles of true religious liberty and freedom and liberty of conscience for all. My name is Shawn.

We’re in the midst of celebrations of 250th Anniversary of American Independence and also in the middle of a conflict over our national origins and the meaning of American democracy. The Christian church is also grappling with issues of meaning, power, and identity. So leadership is more important today than at any point in my lifetime.

I was moved to address the subject after observing a member of my faith community remain silent while an official they’re standing next to denounces separation of church and state.

This has caused a stir among some of us that is similar to other instances recently when people in positions of influence or organizations that we expect to be more vocal during times of emergency are silent and apparently inactive.

So I’m using the lens of three different Bible stories to understand what might be going on and the risks of staying silent for too long. We’ll start with a scene from the story of Elijah the prophet.

This Isn’t a Plan

In 1 Kings 18 the testimony of the Bible concerning Obadiah, a servant of the notorious King Ahab, is one of faithfulness. He reverenced the Lord and bravely hid 100 prophets from the wrath of Jezebel. That took a lot of courage but it also took careful planning and discretion.

Ahab searched for Elijah for years but was unable to find him. Now, out of the blue. here he is standing in front of Obadiah.

“Go and tell your lord that I’m here to see him,” Elijah says.

Obadiah panics. He’s survived by planning and discretion; this is not a plan. It’s an unnecessary, ill advised risk. What if the Lord decides to whisk him away again. Ahab will take his anger out on him.

Elijah reassures Obadiah he’ll be here to meet Ahab. And Obadiah goes to tell Ahab Elijah has returned.

I want us to notice a few details in the story.
They all live in a place governed by fear and desperation. Ahab and Jezebel are tyrants will not hesitate to kill anyone who defies them.
Everyone on the right side of things seems to be acting alone, unaware that others were faithful too.

The situation has taken its toll on everyone. Obadiah protests when asked to step out side his fear. Elijah believes he is all alone because no one has spoken up.

The Aftermath of Silence

At the showdown on Mount Carmel Elijah says, “I, even I only remain a prophet of the LORD.” Even though there were at least 100 prophets true to the Lord still around, Elijah was facing the 450 prophets of Baal on the mount alone.

When Elijah asked whether the people would follow God or Baal not one person, faithful or otherwise, said a word.

Even after the great victory, Elijah found himself sleeping under a Juniper tree when a messenger from Jezebel delivered her threat on his life. He then ran a day’s journey into the wilderness, alone and then another forty days. When God gently asks “what are you doing here Elijah?” He replies “…and I, even I only am left; and they seek my life.”

God uses a Still Small Voice to reveal where He dwells, then encourages Elijah by informing him there are 7,000 who are still faithful. I wonder if Elijah would have been as discouraged if someone else has spoken up? Would he have run so fast or so long or at all if more of those silent folks had stood with him?

There is a prominent member of my church who on two public occasions has silently sat or stood right next to a person denouncing separation of church and state saying it is “not in the Constitution” and “ from this day forward, that phrase should have no power over people of all faiths ever again in America”. And both times they say nothing in support or in opposition, they register neither agreement nor disagreement with the dangerous idea that combining church and state should be embraced by our country.

I cannot put words in their mouth or give them instructions on what they ought to say or do.

There are many people in positions of influence who are silent while falsehoods and distortions are proclaimed over and over again in their presence. The most good faith construction that I can place on their inaction is maybe they’re like Obadiah. They are careful and discreet, working behind the scenes to save doomed possibilities for good.

I see no evidence of this so far but I hope that’s what’s happening.

Still there is a high price for public silence when a crisis demands resolute bravery and clear proclamation of what is right. I believe we’re in such a crisis now.

Good Work, But…

There are those who are opposing the encroachments of religious nationalism. Separation of church and state is the foundation of all other liberties and freedoms. We are living in a time of urgent risks and many are wondering what to do and who to turn to.

Obadiah did good work but he was also constrained by circumstances. He was careful for good reason, let’s not forget, because he lived under an oppressive system. And that system taught the people there is safety in fear and silence.

So when it was time for a breakthrough neither he nor the 100 prophets nor the thousands of others, faithful but fearful, had the courage to speak up when it mattered most. An opportunity was lost and a man at the forefront of the conflict was left alone, battling loneliness and depression, running for his life.

When Silence Becomes Complicity

The silence of Obadiah can become the complicity of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah. He was nervous about an alliance with Ahab against the Syrians and knew better than to trust him. But Jehoshaphat ignored the evidence from God, which he insisted be provided before agreeing to anything, which plainly told him not to go.

Still Jehoshaphat stood by Ahab anyway and agreed to an alliance. Before the war even started he was set up to draw fire away from Ahab. Why he agree to this is unclear but it all ended in tears. They were losing badly to the Syrians when Jehoshaphat was forced to flee screaming like a child that he wasn’t Ahab.

Going along to get along robbed Jehoshaphat of his dignity and almost cost his life.

When we see prominent people from our communities in positions of power, we have hope they will stand up for our shared beliefs, stay true to our common commitments.

We hope they will be like Daniel or Esther.

There are those who are faithful AND courageous just like them.

And there are those who fail, in silence.

The Spirit of Esther and Mordecai

Mordecai warned Esther not to be so risk averse that she fail to take a bold stand when it’s time for action. In fact he reminds Esther that the crisis is the very reason for her being queen. Their people were in grave danger and her intervention was required.

Eventually there comes a moment where we stand or fall. No one can hide from this reckoning, including a queen.

It is in this spirit of Mordecai that I make an appeal with a respectful question: if not now, when?

Our people, all people are under threat. What’s the plan?

We are in the midst of crisis, where our current government is openly attacking the foundational pillar which allows us liberty of conscience, religious liberty and religious freedom. We’ve been saying this was going to happen for a very long time. And now here we are.

We’ve had our whole lives to prepare for this, why aren’t we ready?

Many in our ranks are confused, fearful, discouraged, or simply exhausted.

Some ARE fighting the good fight of faith but morale is low.

Now is an opportunity for someone who “holds these truths as self-evident,” “inalienable”, precious to speak up and speak truth to power; to tactfully and respectfully object and reset the terms of the debate on firmer, truer ground.

It’s Time

This is the moment all the behind the scenes work, if that work is being done, is really for, the reason for all the access and influence.

There comes a point when association with a correct position cannot be assumed to mean full dedication to principle.

The principles that position represents must be affirmed in the clearest and most unmistakable terms while leaving consequences in the hands of God.

There comes a time in a crisis when what was discretion becomes complicity and silence becomes betrayal of the cause we serve and the God who gave us opportunity to stand in the gap.

Where ever we are, for the sake of those around us and also for those who are taking great risks we must have a ready answer when circumstances question us; do you serve truth and justice or smooth lies and tyranny? There are times when we must take a stand even though its risky.

Otherwise, what’s the point of having correct positions if we’re ready to surrender them whenever Ahab makes an offer or Jezebel makes a threat?

Courage is not the absence of fear, it is doing what’s right while afraid and despite the consequences. Sometimes we have to do it scared.

Those of us who are Christians, do we trust God and believe His promises or not.

The Toll of Crisis

Ahab and Jezebel in the Bible represent a combination of religion and state with all the attendant repression, depravity and corruption inherent in the union.

We can learn a few things from Elijah, Obadiah, and others living at that time:

Sustained pressure affects the mental health of everyone, especially those with public responsibilities.
Though feeling alone isn’t always the same as being alone, it is still a heavy burden to bear.
Our behind the scenes advocacy should be groundwork for eventual public declaration of where we stand.
Our positions are not only about “us”; we have a responsibility to those who look to us with their reasonable expectations of faithfulness to our shared values.
Our expectations can cause our disappointments to become obstacles. We end up standing in our own way. God does not always move as we expect but He never fails.
Regardless of our situation our standards and principles should be unmistakably clear.
Repeated, conscious failure to take a determined stand when vital issues are at stake signals complicity.

Opportunities to Redeem the Time

Finally, I mean no disrespect to anyone nor am I judging hearts or destinies.

But this moment is too important to allow to pass by passively. There won’t be another 250th anniversary. People are uniquely attuned to these issues of true religious liberty and democracy.

We are in the best position we will ever be in again to defend and advance separation of church and state, religious liberty, religious freedom, and all other civil rights and liberties.

Our arguments that the true gospel is spread by persuasion not by force can land with decided impact now.

Religious nationalism misrepresents the character of God as someone cruel and unloving. But God is love. He commanded the spreading of the gospel and salvation through teaching not by violent conquest, plunder, and colonizing of people and land in His name.

God never said the church should replace the Holy Spirit with state power.

We have to oppose these efforts to distort true religion and to reverse victories and re-litigate arguments over history and the Constitution we’ve already won.

We are in a conflict, a great controversy. Though the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, not violent, not sarcastic, not deceptive, they are mighty. And we must engage the battle to pull down these strongholds of revisionist history, false religion, and structural oppression before they are fully erected.

My favorite writer says,

“Now is the time when the loyal and true are to arise and shine; for the glory of the Lord is risen upon them. It is no time now to hide our colors, no time to turn traitors when the battle presses sore, no time to lay aside our weapons of warfare. Watchmen on the walls of Zion must be wide awake.”—Selected Message Vol. 2, p. 373

It is time, high time, been time for us, where ever we are, to unfurl our colors, pick up our rhetorical weapons, our resolute character, and study war some more.

We can be good people, doing good work and still miss the moment.

Let’s not miss this moment so our good works won’t be in vein, our silence testifying against us in history and in eternity. God can redeem our time.

Will we let Him?

Thanks for your time and attention. If you want to support our work please subscribe and/or become a patron. We are grateful for all of you who subscribe and/or are patrons. This work is not possible without you. You can find us at Watchlight.org and on Patreon.com at The Watchlight.

Take care and grace to you.

Anthropic's Pope Series, Part 1: Democracy or "the City of God"?

Watchlight Media — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:53:55 GMT

“Humanity’s Father” for a New Age?

Our title, “Anthropic’s Pope” is a play on words.

“Anthropic” means “related to humans or humanity” and refers both the company and to Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical argument for the role he and his church believe they should play in the future of the world. In addition to a formal title “pope” means “father.”

The Lantern is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Leo is not Anthropic’s puppet.

Representing his church Leo is contending for influence by parlaying popular support for his “AI” criticisms and the Roman church’s global soft power influence into leverage within the industry and beyond it.

Not for the benefit of humanity but for the good of his church which we are encouraged to believe will also benefit humanity.

The first encyclical of Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas, is about much more than the bundle of technologies marketed as “AI”. It is a blueprint for his church and their allies proffering assistance to states struggling with difficult choices complicated by “AI”.

War, economic uncertainty, famine, ecological disasters, genocide, Western hubris, and technological displacement are threatening the stability and peace of many nations. Much of the world is plunging into chaos, disarray, and crisis.

Leo and his church are not wasting this crisis, using a time of upheaval and uncertainty to gain political, diplomatic, societal, and economic ground.

CTTC (Cut to the Chase): Our Argument

The encyclical should be read in the geopolitical and American contexts of our time.
The church has largely endorsed Anthropic’s philosophy of “AI” including its dangers and potential as a form of consciousness.
The letter is about much more than “AI” as Leo offers his church doctrine as a blueprint for reform within nation-states.
All secular governments not aligned with Catholic Social Doctrine are labeled as “Babel.”
The “city of God” as a political reality can only be built on foundations set by the Catholic Church.
The document is a work of statecraft and the Roman Catholic Church should be judged as a state in its role as a political entity.
The history of this institution and papal leadership are the clearest example of why church and state should be separated in American politics.

Remember Context:

Magnifica Humanitas spends most of its words and pages promoting an alternative vision not just from the tech oligarchs but also to secular democracy.

In this context, when we say “secular” it means without sectarian (religious) loyalties, motivations, obligations or identity.

Vatican II notwithstanding, the Roman Church institutionally does not believe in separation of church and state or in complete liberty of conscience.

Magnifica Humanitas dreams of a world not without “AI” but one which embodies the church’s vision for a faithful polity; a political philosophy that can adapt to any system, never change but transform those systems to align with the church’s vision of “the city of God”. The world it envisions is one without any successful secular democracies where church and state are separate.

It builds on Rerum novarum in its aspirations to stir humanity toward an embrace of Catholic Social Doctrine as the political and spiritual underpinning of all societies.

Here are other aspects of the context this encyclical is written to address:

The companies and individuals that control the foundational “AI” models are economically and politically power.
They all have god complexes, are completely self-absorbed, petty, greedy, ruthless, dishonest, and selfish on grand scales.
The tech industry beyond “AI” companies (software, hardware, infrastructure) wield considerable global influence and make up a sizable portion of the global economy.
The impact of “AI” moves with unprecedented swiftness disrupting education and literacy, work and the economy, relationships and mental health, society and social trust, politics and civic engagement, law and its application.
The United States, long considered the linchpin of global stability and an indispensable nation, is no longer trusted by most of the world. In its 250th year of independence U.S. competency and power is no longer considered a forgone conclusion.
The U.S. is widely perceived as having lost the Iran conflict due to overreach, incompetence, arrogance, and weakness.
Material support for genocide of the Palestinian people, tacit approval for the genocide in Sudan conducted by U.S. allies, virtual abandonment of Ukraine, naive and cruel diplomacy, destroying USAID and ceding ground to China (among many other follies) has caused irreparable damage to the international order established by the U.S. after World War II.
The West, particularly Europe, is feeling insecure and for the first time in a century is looking around for guidance that it no longer believes the U.S. can provide.
The Trump era is destroying the structures and norms of American society, politics, and social bonds founded upon a secular Constitution and a citizenship not tied to sectarian identity.
As separation of church and state and liberty of conscience (as defined by the U.S. Constitution) are undermined at home and discredited abroad we may be entering into a post-Reformation era.

Subtext is Context

Pope Leo should be understood not only as a priest or pastor. He is a king over a church-state which for more than a thousand years has repeatedly sought power at any cost. Magnifica Humanitas is not a condemnation of the principle of power, it is an attack on rivals, the tech oligarchy and secular democracy; and an audition of ideas to augment or refurbish all civil institutions and political and economic systems with Catholic Social Doctrine. It is very ambitious.

The analysis of the problems with the misuse of “AI” are either obvious or tows the exact line of the “AI establishment.” While the language in some parts are strong overall this letter is trying to parlay for influence not destroy or meaningfully disrupt the industry. The only moral stance that is unequivocal are those elements related to Catholic Social Doctrine and the need to build a city of God. Most other stances are flexible and disturbingly “equivocal.”

For example the much lauded apology for slavery is no apology at all, not in the modern sense. It is not an expression of regret for slavery. Leo is engaged in the practice of apologetics for his church and predecessors. In fact, the entire letter is a prime example of Catholic apologetics as offense and defense of his church.

He never admits that the church as an institution, for hundreds of years, did more spreading of colonialism and the slave trade than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

His request for pardon is much like a king requesting his robe: polite but with an authority accustomed to not being disappointed or delayed. Section 176 is an example of why this document should raise serious concerns for anyone tempted to be impressed by his arguments.

The indispensable question here is not whether “AI” is good or bad.

The question is should we trust the papacy and Roman Catholicism with the destiny and direction of mankind?

We Need Both Liberty and Freedom

Watchlight Media — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 02:05:48 GMT

Non-establishment prevents institutions and systems from favoring particular religions, free exercise allows individuals/groups to choose beliefs according to conscience without state interference.

Welcome to The Beacon

Watchlight Media — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 23:38:37 GMT

We have some interesting things planned for the future. Religious nationalism, in all its forms, is a serious threat to liberty of conscience and separation of church and state. Join us as we examine the issues, gain insights, and develop strategy to preserve and advance true religious liberty.

Anthropic's Pope: Magnifica Humanitas is a Blueprint for a Christian Nation

Watchlight Media — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 18:09:49 GMT

Magnifica Humanitas is founded upon on Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum written at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and Francis’ Laudato Si during what looked like a global shift toward sustainability.

Chapters

“Humanity’s Father” for a New Age?

Our title, “Anthropic’s Pope” is a play on words.

Leo is not Anthropic’s puppet.

Not for the benefit of humanity but for the good of his church which we are encouraged to believe will also benefit humanity.

Leo and his church are not wasting this crisis, using a time of upheaval and uncertainty to gain political, diplomatic, societal, and economic ground.

CTTC (Cut to the Chase): Our Argument

The encyclical should be read in the geopolitical and American contexts of our time.
The church has largely endorsed Anthropic’s philosophy of “AI” including its dangers and potential as a form of consciousness.
The letter is about much more than “AI” as Leo offers his church doctrine as a blueprint for reform within nation-states.
All secular governments not aligned with Catholic Social Doctrine are labeled as “Babel.”
The “city of God” as a political reality can only be built on foundations set by the Catholic Church.
The document is a work of statecraft and the Roman Catholic Church should be judged as a state in its role as a political entity.
The history of this institution and papal leadership are the clearest example of why church and state should be separated in American politics.

Remember Context:

Magnifica Humanitas spends most of its words and pages promoting an alternative vision not just from the tech oligarchs but also to secular democracy.

In this context, when we say “secular” it means without sectarian (religious) loyalties, motivations, obligations or identity.

It builds on Rerum novarum in its aspirations to stir humanity toward an embrace of Catholic Social Doctrine as the political and spiritual underpinning of all societies.

Here are other aspects of the context this encyclical is written to address:

The companies and individuals that control the foundational “AI” models are economically and politically power.
They all have god complexes, are completely self-absorbed, petty, greedy, ruthless, dishonest, and selfish on grand scales.
The tech industry beyond “AI” companies (software, hardware, infrastructure) wield considerable global influence and make up a sizable portion of the global economy.
The impact of “AI” moves with unprecedented swiftness disrupting education and literacy, work and the economy, relationships and mental health, society and social trust, politics and civic engagement, law and its application.
The United States, long considered the linchpin of global stability and an indispensable nation, is no longer trusted by most of the world. In its 250th year of independence U.S. competency and power is no longer considered a forgone conclusion.
The U.S. is widely perceived as having lost the Iran conflict due to overreach, incompetence, arrogance, and weakness.
Material support for genocide of the Palestinian people, tacit approval for the genocide in Sudan conducted by U.S. allies, virtual abandonment of Ukraine, naive and cruel diplomacy, destroying USAID and ceding ground to China (among many other follies) has caused irreparable damage to the international order established by the U.S. after World War II.
The West, particularly Europe, is feeling insecure and for the first time in a century is looking around for guidance that it no longer believes the U.S. can provide.
The Trump era is destroying the structures and norms of American society, politics, and social bonds founded upon a secular Constitution and a citizenship not tied to sectarian identity.
As separation of church and state and liberty of conscience (as defined by the U.S. Constitution) are undermined at home and discredited abroad we may be entering into a post-Reformation era.

Subtext is Context

The indispensable question here is not whether “AI” is good or bad.

The question is should we trust the papacy and Roman Catholicism with the destiny and direction of mankind?

Understanding the Scene

St. Peter's Basilica. They probably didn’t meet here.

What is an encyclical?

It is an imitation of the epistles or letters of the New Testament by the apostles such as Peter and Paul.

But Leo wasn’t just talking to his church,

He wants us all building together according to this blueprint.

The letter was released on the 135th anniversary of the publication of Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum novarum, which addressed challenges wrought by industrialization.

While this isn’t the first time he’s commented on “AI”, in Magnifica Humanitas Leo marks the importance of his timing,

These are all poignant questions of global significance.

Irony or Hypocrisy?

It is revealing what the Anthropic and Leo focused on soon after the public event presenting the encyclical which centers its arguments around prioritizing the poor and powerless:

Anthropic announced a nearly trillion dollar valuation after raising $65 billion dollars.

On June 10th, Leo visited and blessed Sagrada Família, a church in Spain that’s been under construction since 1882 and is still not finished.

Cheat Codes

To understand Magnifica Humanitas and what it is trying to accomplish there are a few helpful things to know:

Karen Hao’s Empire of AI was the first serious effort to trace the roots and motivations of the companies and personalities driving the development and adopt of “AI.” She says emphatically that they are building empires to rule over us not to make the world better or our jobs easier. Popes have always taken special interest in influencing empires.
The Vatican sees “AI” as a rising influence and those makers and owners of it as new power players in geopolitical and global economic affairs.
Anthropic’s “Claude Constitution”
“The document is written with Claude as its primary audience, so it might read differently than you’d expect. For example, it’s optimized for precision over accessibility, and it covers various topics that may be of less interest to human readers. We also discuss Claude in terms normally reserved for humans (e.g., “virtue,” “wisdom”).
“We do this because we expect Claude’s reasoning to draw on human concepts by default, given the role of human text in Claude’s training; and we think encouraging Claude to embrace certain human-like qualities may be actively desirable.”
Anthropic as a company takes the position that Claude is a new kind of consciousness, though they’re not sure and it may be dangerous, they’ve assigned themselves as guardians and makers of “good ‘AI’ ”to counteract “bad ‘AI’ ” made by nation states like China, companies like OpenAI or Google and individuals like Elon Musk.
“Powerful AI models will be a new kind of force in the world, and people creating them have a chance to help them embody the best in humanity. We hope this constitution is a step in that direction.”
The company also says,
“We want Claude to have good values and be a good AI assistant, in the same way that a person can have good personal values while also being extremely good at their job. Perhaps the simplest summary is that we want Claude to be exceptionally helpful while also being honest, thoughtful, and caring about the world.” (Notice the anthropomorphic language)
In 2020 the Catholic Church issued what they refer to as the “Rome Call for AI Ethics.” They highlight three major areas of concern (ethics, education, and rights) and six principles. So institutionally this church has been working to influence the direction of “AI” well before ChatGPT’s debut in November 2022.

If you read this “Rome call” (which is very brief) and the summary of Claude’s constitution you will understand the vast majority of what Leo says in his encyclical on “AI.” Much of his analysis of “AI” and his priorities for the technology are right in line with how Anthropic describes its model.

Leo says it is something “cultivated” (Section 98) using organic terms and broadly reflecting what Anthropic says it’s working toward on the technology front.

Two Cities and (Only) Two Choices

Leo frames his argument as a choice between two construction projects mentioned in the Bible: the tower of Babel and Nehemiah’s project to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

Other than these two stories and a few Bible verses here and there Scripture references are scarce. The document mostly quotes and cites papal pronouncements and doctrines using “sacred tradition” to interpret the Bible and the cultural and political environments.

Leo coins the term “Babel syndrome” (Section 10) to attack attempts to build “a city” or society based on homogeneity that “does not acknowledge God” and “seeks to make a name for itself” (Section 7). You could be forgiven for believing this is only referring to the “AI” oligarchy or the Nerd Reich, but that’s not his ultimate target.

All through out the letter he condemns various forms of polity for their failures but his arguments are directed especially to “the West” which, during the American Century (rhetorically), moved away from closer ties to the church in favor of nonsectarian democracy. Leo is essentially chiding that decision as a mistake.

Leo contrasts “Babel” (which magisterial Catholics and Evangelicals equate with democracy and separation of church and state) with a sectarian society that “acknowledges God,” via (Roman) Catholic Social Doctrine.

The origins of this construction dichotomy aren’t the stories of Babel and Nehemiah. He is using Augustine’s framework of “the city of God” vs “the city of Man”. Remember that Leo is an Augustinian.

It is not coincidence that this encyclical was released during the semiquincentennial (250th anniversary) of America’s independence. The conservatives in the United States have spent the better part of 80 years trying to dismantle the democratic, Constitutional foundation of the U.S. while increasing its military and economic hegemony.

This effort has culminated in the corruption of the Executive Branch, the takeover of Congress and the transformation of the Supreme Court through sectarian policy making and financial corruption.

With all the problems of our sabotaged and breaking systems (here and in Europe) there is no better time than now to offer an alternative and Leo and the Magisterium are not wasting our crisis.

Just as the Roman church elected a Polish pope that would directly challenge and undermine the Soviet system of Communism, they now have elected an American pope to capitalize on the implosion of U.S. politics. Its advocates and allies have helped create crisis and now they offer magisterial solutions for our democratic “chaos.”

So the stories of Babel (“AI” oligarchy, liberal democracy) and Nehemiah (Augustine’s *City of God*, Catholic Social Doctrine) are warnings and prescriptions for states and governments not just individuals or churches.

Hiding in plain sight is that Leo, as the “vicar of Christ”, is offering solutions which neither Jesus nor any of his disciples would find compelling. This is why there are so few Scripture references supporting this social teaching framework.

None of the tenets of Catholic Social Doctrine, which are extensively and painstakingly explained and reviewed in this letter, are found in the Bible as prescriptions for state polity. They find their origin in Rerum novarum, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

And, as a democratic republic founded on the principles of separation of church and state and liberty of conscience, the replacement of civil institutions and public goods with subsidiarity and the (so-called) common good invites us to repudiate the very principles which made us what we are as Americans.

A dominant theme within Catholicism is that American-style democracy is not God’s will for humanity. This system believes that without the guidance and correction of the church in all matters the state and the society are lost.

Catholic Social Doctrine is a means of influencing these secular democratic states (especially in Europe) without appearing to threaten them and guide them back to relationship with Rome to embrace their “Christian heritage.”

The timing is perfect.

His framing is essentially this: without the church being in direct partnership with a state it is “secular” (Babel) and therefore only concerned about “making a name” for itself. But with the church (his church) guiding the affairs of state, it will “acknowledge God” (Section 7) and therefore help to usher in the (full) kingdom of God.

This ultimately means no such thing as non-establishment of religion, liberty of conscience, or a church subject to civil accountability. This change would happen over time not immediately. And with the U.S. especially being run by grifters and foolish men, a competent, devout alternative that says it values human rights and dignity may be attractive.

But we need to be clear that Leo is proposing a sophisticated form of Christian nationalism which would ultimately become a crude and cruel dictatorship. The ideas of Magnifica Humanitas seem inspiring and even beautiful.

But his vision is a threat to secular democracy and separation of church and state. This social doctrine is not an enhancement for secular democracy but a replacement of safeguards against establishment of religion.

Spolia in a City of God?

Fragments of Greek inscriptions in the masonry.

Much of Roman Catholicism, as a church-state system, borrows heavily from non-Christian influences and fuses them together into one whole. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, among many others, adapted Greek philosophy into an interpretation of Scripture and other pagan concepts (Interpretatio Christiana).

In Greek philosophy the difference between man and gods was power not character.

In practice, religions which wield state power are no different than secular dictatorships. They may have more ornate justifications for their crimes but ultimately it is “divine right” and scale not upright character that separates their behavior from common criminals.

Leo’s Augustinian “two cities” framework is influenced by Plato and a Neoplatonists construction of reality. So his understanding of human value and the nature of man is not strictly or principally Bible based. And these perspectives must be understood not simply in a theological context but in a state-based, political context.

It should also be noted that Augustine believed in “righteous persecution” in which a state carries out the dictates of the church to punish heretics “for their own soul salvation.” According to Augustine if a person

“sees that it is unrighteousness for which he suffers, he may be induced, from the consideration that he is suffering and being tormented most fruitlessly, to change his purpose for the better, and may at the same time escape both the fruitless annoyance and the unrighteousness itself … .”

It is an a priori assumption that the Roman Church has abandoned the notion of coercing people to convert through force. But anytime time a religion, any religion, gains the ability to wield or manipulate state power it always results in persecution against dissenters.

A “city of God” guided by Augustine’s vision for it may indeed define itself in the most moral terms. But how long would it be before the church, empowered by a state, would tire of those clamoring for change, define them as “unrighteous” and seek to change their purpose through state-sanctioned suffering?

The adoption of Catholic Social Doctrine, therefore, begins with persuasion but can harden into coercion with no legal or spiritual basis for dissent or reform. All rights are subject to a religious institution to interpret in the light of a church doctrine.

A state defined by a religious identity, where religious institutions wield great influence over political, educational, and economic affairs, will assume for itself the exclusive ability to regulate and reform itself.

Catholic Social Teaching is crafted by a church which reserves for itself the final say in its interpretation. And that church has a very long history of endorsing and blessing the persecution of dissenters, resisting reformation, and shunning civil authority, before and after Vatican II.

It resists civil authority even when its own mechanisms for accountability have failed, such as the unfathomable level of sexual abuse of hundreds of thousands of children by thousands of priests all over the world.

Everything it admonishes individuals, corporations, governments, and nations not to do it has done, for centuries. But in Section 2, Leo makes a very bold claim,

“Founded on Christ, the living stone, we experience the powerful and mysterious action of the Holy Spirit, and we believe that every authentic human effort to cooperate with him for the good will be blessed by our heavenly Father, in whom we place our hope. For this reason, we can diligently contribute to every initiative that builds a more just world, and we can call others to collaborate in promoting the integral development of every human being.”

But neither Jesus (as the Living Stone) nor His church were exhumed from a human quarry. Jesus is the Rock upon which the Christian church is founded not any human being nor any mortal philosophy. He is the Rock, cut out without human hands, and the foundation He set for the church is not composed of ideological spolia from here and there.

All other ground is sinking sand.

And this same Jesus, Who said “My kingdom is not of this world”, also placed the state (Caesar) and the church (God) in separate spheres. Church and state are not collaborators on “the construction site of our time (Section 16).” The task of the church is to win the world, if possible, one soul at a time through the power of the Holy Spirit and godly persuasion not through state power and economic policy.

The problem here is not that the church is concerned about the practical needs of humanity. It is that in the name of Jesus various churches are trying to establish a religious kingdom despite His instructions and in spite of individual conscience.

James Madison said,

“Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitution or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise and purify your systems, and make the example of your country as pure and complete, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”

Is It the Work of American Christians in Government to Build New Jerusalem?

No human government can build (or rebuild) the “New Jerusalem” yet Leo implies it is the proper work of politics to try:

Section 10: “Rebuilding today means recognizing that, precisely from the plurality of voices and visions which, even though they sometimes remind us of the confusion caused by the diversity of spoken languages, a bright possibility emerges.

”Indeed, this is the possibility of building together, of transforming diversity into a resource and of making listening and dialogue the common ground upon which to cultivate justice and fraternity.

”Within this shared task, Christians discover their unique role of guiding actions toward God so that, in his light, pluralism does not dissipate into disorder, but instead, through the practice of synodality, it becomes the space in which humanity rediscovers its solid foundations and its final end.

”In the Book of Revelation, John sees the New Jerusalem ‘coming down out of heaven from God’ (Rev 21:2) as a gift for all humanity. And this vision of grace is an invitation for us Christians to work together in order to foster a peaceful, just and dignified life in community within today’s ‘cities.’ ”

In the encyclical it may appear there is great respect for public goods and government institutions, but a careful reading reveals something else.

For example, after a very lengthy explanatory showcase of Catholic Social Doctrine as the cure for all problems caused by tech bros and secular governments, Leo says this in Chapter Three, Section 95:

“In many cases within the digital context, control over platforms, infrastructure, data and computing power does not rest with States, but with major economic and technological actors.”

“These entities effectively set the conditions for access, determine the rules of visibility and shape the very possibilities for participation.”

“When such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, it tends to become opaque and evade public oversight, increasing the risk of distorted forms of development that give rise to new dependencies, exclusions, manipulations and inequalities.”

This is an example of “stating the obvious” and affirming something that is a widely held opinion. Then he says this in the next section, 96:

“Faced with this concentration of power in the digital world, the criteria for judgment and discernment in this new situation are the noble principles of Social Doctrine: the inalienable dignity of the human person, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice. They demand that we assess whether the power of digital infrastructures and algorithms truly fosters participation and responsibility, protects the vulnerable, ensures fair access to opportunities and remains directed toward the good of all…”

These “noble principles” are proffered as a way to understand and to regulate all “digital infrastructures.” By positioning himself as the proxy representative for the poor and powerless Leo prescribes a cure that is worse than the aliment: using church doctrine as a blueprint for public policy and government regulation.

We don’t object to Catholic Social Doctrine as a spiritual teaching or a model for how Catholic Churches are run, but we reject it as a blueprint for the governance of states particularly the United States.

Having framed this letter, which is addressed to everyone, as a choice between “Babel” (non-sectarian democracy) and his church doctrine, Leo goes further.

He says that Catholicism’s plan for how societies should be organized is the criteria for how to analyze, understand, and regulate a paradigm shifting technology that’s become the (perceived) locus of political and economic power.

But his analysis of “AI” bears no greater insight than that shared by many others concerned about its spread and influence. And in this long treatise, Leo is unable to give any contemporary, empirical or historical examples of when implementing Catholic Social Doctrine (or combining church and state) ever resulted in a society or government that fulfills his promises.

Play Political Games, Win Political Prizes

There are no examples of Catholic countries which applied these principles and got the results promised by Leo. The Vatican, which is the smallest recognized state in the world, where popes have monarchical power over its government and fewer than one thousand citizens abides by these principles. Is it the moral and political model of Catholic Social Doctrine? Is Peru or Spain?

It is so important to remember that an institution which combines church and state and, under certain conditions, even claims infallibility has a track record which is a list of horrors both extensive and breathtaking.

How can one petition a government beholden to a religious institution for legitmacy that can claim to be without error even as it is committing horrific errors?

While making the claims and assuming the prerogatives of this Roman church-state it’s not good enough for defenders of this blueprint to dismiss criticism by raising the imperfections of other churches or states.

The papal office and Roman Catholicism makes consistent claims of moral superiority and should be judged on that higher standard upon which is prerogatives are supposed to be based.

Otherwise as a political actor it should be subject to the same consequences and rules of other political actors without the benefit of claiming exemption based on its role as a church. It is hypocrisy to claim to be above politics while operating in politics, whether directly or through proxies, as a state.

Too often churches which seek political power want to be considered as neutral actors given perpetual benefit of the doubt untainted by politics. It is a mistake to tolerate this contradiction without protest and without efforts to restore a healthy separation of roles. If you play political games, you should win political consequences.

Another reason for the separation of church and state.

Remember Memorial and Remonstrance?

“…it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties....Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?”

The Third Option

A fully functional American democracy that lives up to the expectations of its citizens while remaining true to its Constitutional principles and civil institutions is the best, viable third option.

This is why separation of church and state is so vital; it protects the conscience of society and of individuals from the excesses of religious authority which is unable to properly assess its own imperfections and resists accountability from all other institutions.

Non-establishment protects churches from the hypocrisy inherit in mixing religion and politics in statecraft. It protects states from the corroding influences of politicized religion and honors individual’s liberty of conscience.

The best option for regulating “AI”, reigning in the excesses of oligarchs and capital, and protecting individual and collective liberty is to repair and reform American democratic institutions based on an accurate reading of the Constitution and a just and honesty reckoning with our own history.

Jesus never gave a prescription for national renewal for theocratic states because the kingdom He established did not depend upon force or coercion marshaled by state power, wealthy donors, or corporate interests for success. He never approved replacing the Holy Spirit with state power.

“It is no part of Christ’s mission to compel men to receive Him. It is Satan, and men actuated by his spirit, that seek to compel the conscience. . . . There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas.”—The Desire of Ages, p. 487.

More than any other the Roman church has a history, even after Vatican II, of sanctioning guile, force, and coercion to avoid scandal or protect its interests. It is unsafe and unwise to consider the arguments of Magnifica Humanitas outside the reality of its own practices.

While some will immediately point to the failures of American democracy and Protestantism I believe such analogies only prove the point. It is only recently that the American government closely aligned itself with any particular strain of Christianity.

That change contradicts to the protections and prohibitions of the Constitution. But this endorsing of religion more closely aligns to the structural prescriptions outlined in Magnifica Humanitas.

For example welfare, social safety nets offered by the government, is condemned by Leo in this letter because it interferes with his vision of subsidiarity.

But when the Trump administration, after dismantling USAID, began awarding hundreds of millions of dollars directly to Catholic agencies and NGOs in ways which affirm subsidiarity and hamper accountability to the U.S. government there was celebration.

Why? Because aid will be distributed to local Catholic institutions which increases that church’s influence and rivals or even surpasses the influence of state institutions which no longer receive direct aid to help maintain state based social services.

What can appear to be a benign structure meant to address needs more compassionately and efficiently also happens to increase the social and political influence of politically connected religious institutions in the lives of everyday people.

It disrupts the relationship between citizens and their government when tax payer dollars are used to fund an ecclesiastical social services middle man. The state is no longer responsible for the welfare of its citizens and citizens have no democratic means of holding a church accountable or investigating corruption or abuse.

It is not possible for a state-aligned church to separate its ecclesiastical interests from its political interests. Regardless of the spiritual rhetoric and high brow eloquence of its rituals and airs, power will be exercised in ways which normalizes hypocrisy and misrepresents the character of God while claiming to advance His will.

The letter points out that “AI” companies are wielding power and influence outside the confines of state influence. The encyclical is criticizing who is allowed to do this, not that it is happening. The principle of subsidiarity reveals this church aspires to something similar; funded by the state, wielding great political influence while not subject to democratic accountability.

Inviting a billionaire co-founder of Anthropic to speak at the presentation of Magnifica Humanitas was a political move not a spiritual one.

And parlaying that connection into wider influence in that industry is unlikely to yield tangible systemic benefits for “the poor.” The Vatican may gain leverage and, as they define it, their gain is everyone’s gain. But is that so?

What is Catholic Social Doctrine?

Magnifica Humanitas provides an in-depth survey of Catholic Social Doctrine which is probably the best summary of the teaching and most accessible to non-specialists.

Technically speaking Catholic Social Doctrine (CSD) is a teaching not a dogma. It combines enduring elements of principle with a more flexible toleration for updating depending upon circumstances.

Some within the Roman Catholic Church believe the doctrine should be tied more directly to the moral teaching of their church. Some see its flexibility as a weakness because the language is so broad and non-definitive that one can read into it anything they want. Perhaps a weakness for a church doctrine but a possible strength for public messaging.

This summary analysis therefore doesn’t take the doctrine on its own terms, that would be a mistake. Using all the contexts reviewed earlier, we treat CSD more like a political philosophy that uses spiritual language to soften or obscure its bold intent to reorder societies in its own image.

CSD is often presented as a spiritual belief system which so happens to touch on every aspect of a modern person’s life and the nature of their government. But the encyclical is the vision of a church-state entity that is competing for power with other systems and we should read it in that light.

The Principles of Social Doctrine

Our assertion here are that the pillars of CSD are too weak a foundation for secular (nonsectarian) democratic republics. American Constitutional principles are broader and deeper than this framework contain.

Here are highlights of the problematic elements in Leo’s argument. Not all these ideas are bad. But the institution proposing these vast changes is unreliable, has never implemented these reforms where it wields the most influence, has a history of supporting shameless hypocrisy and horrific persecution, and is no more trustworthy as than the oligarchs or political systems it criticizes.

With no institutional track record of evidence to prove his ideas works and ample evidence that churches with political power always abuse that power, the risks outweigh the pretty words.

The principle of the common good

Section 58: “It is individuals that matter, each and every person, together with their families. Social movements, communal ideologies and grand political proclamations in favor of a population are worthless unless they lead to the flourishing of persons — men and women — with their inalienable rights”

This comes right before the section explaining the principles of Social Doctrine. The use of the term “inalienable rights” is deliberate, alluding as it does to the American Declaration of Independence. It is a subtle dig. “Social movements, communal ideologies and grand political proclamations in favor of a population are worthless unless…”

This is unassailable true, out of context. But when you consider the institution making the argument, its record up the present regarding use of state power, and its repeated failure to protect human dignity it does not come across as a good faith social justice critique. It is bold and dangerous hypocrisy.

Section 59: “Recognizing that every man and woman possesses an inalienable dignity, together with rights that no human power can betray or nullify, requires us to shape the way we live together, including our economic and political choices, and the makeup of our cities.”

“Inalienable dignity” is not the same as the inalienable rights within a democratic republic that separates church from state. Inalienable dignity sounds good but upon what is it based? It moves the concept of “inalienable rights” from a civil sphere to a ecclesiastical sphere where the church determines definition and application.

“No human power” is a very strange and suspicious phrasing considering the context of the claims of the papacy and Roman Catholicism. In “the city of God,” the church is much more than a human institution. Therefore, once invested with the ability to wield or manipulate state power can it nullify that dignity in the name of salvation?

What are the safeguards?

Sections 60: “The Second Vatican Council affirmed that the common good consists in ‘the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.’ ”

Is “the common good” to be a replacement of secular, nonsectarian democracy as an organizing principle for free states? Does the polity determine what is the common good or does the church?

Section 61: “In this sense, we can say that the whole is ‘greater than the sum of its parts’ and that, for this very reason, ‘the mere sum of individual interests is not capable of generating a better world for the whole human family.’ Indeed, it is an illusion to think that simply pursuing one’s own progress without caring for others is sufficient for contributing to the good of all.”

There goes the “pursuit of happiness.” This indeed is the spirit of the “Syllabus of Errors.”

“This view ignores the inherent and specific value of the common good, which is the result of an ‘interdependence’ that creates a network of social good that expands and has an impact on people.”

In the context of replacing or augmenting secular, non-establishment state structures with a religious doctrinal framework, the “common good” assumes that no society can be safe or stable without a religious identity. Secular states are Babel, remember?

The principle of the universal (Catholic?) destination of goods

The universal destination of goods means all the resources of creation belong to all mankind. So while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes private property rights those rights are not absolute.

As a theological concept it is fine. Once you bring it into a church-state construction with politics and economic systems it reads differently.

Section 66: “Certainly there is a right to private property, which has its own specific meaning and purpose, yet it is always subordinate to the universal destination of goods. According to John Paul II, this subordination is the golden rule of social conduct and the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order.” In the Church’s tradition, property has been viewed as a means of protecting and managing goods so that they may better serve the common good.”

Who determines the ethical and social order of subordination in a society of God? Church tradition does; not democratic institutions, not elections, not civic engagement.

And “traditionally” serving the common good according to this church meant sustained funding of the church, its state, and its various endeavors with no democratic “strings” attached.

Section 67: “Today, among the goods that are universally intended for everyone, we must also include new forms of property, such as patents, algorithms, digital platforms, technological infrastructure and data. In a context where the wealth of nations depends increasingly on knowledge and technology, when these goods remain concentrated in the hands of a few, without adequate forms of sharing and access, a new imbalance is created that contradicts the universal destination of goods.”

Call it the “common good tax”; Leo positioning his church to be the arbiter of where “the destination of goods” ultimately is. In Peru, where he is a naturalized citizen, the Roman Church receives direct support from the state for it’s clergy and dioceses as well as various tax exemptions. Most of these benefits are not available to other religious groups.

The Principle of Subsidiarity

Section 68: “The principle of subsidiarity stems from the very same understanding of the human person that has guided our reflection on dignity and the common good.

“If every woman and man is called to take ownership of his or her own life and to contribute to the formation of society, then social institutions must also respect and support this responsibility.

“The Social Doctrine of the Church refers to subsidiarity as the principle according to which the role of individuals, families, local communities and intermediary organizations should not be supplanted by higher-level authorities.

“Moreover, higher-level institutions must recognize, protect and promote the freedom and creativity of lower-level entities, coordinating their contributions so that they can cooperate effectively for the common good.”

A subtle outline which skillfully frames power as being democratic without democracy. “Coordinating contributions” is not the same as electoral accountability.

There is no prohibition against combination of church and state and such a structure enhances this church’s influence because it is the most organized and powerful local entity taking part in this process. This gives it more opportunities to build connections with constituencies than a federalized state with a centralized national government which has no social programs to offer its citizens.

Section 70: “In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, decisions are made at the closest level possible to the persons involved, thereby fostering community life and avoiding people being presented with decisions that have already been taken.”

If people have been guided by the church to decide on an issue, the state shouldn’t be able to present that decision in another context to be decided again?

In section 87, Leo writes,

“… subsidiarity becomes the guiding principle for governance and pastoral life.”

In other words a church doctrine to govern states and to order church life. Remember, subsidiarity is a governance model for politically organized groups or groups organized for political action through local institutions.

The Principle of Solidarity

Section 73: “Saint Paul VI observed that the obligations of solidarity, justice and charity are rooted in the human and supernatural fraternal bonds that unite individuals and populations. [98] Fraternity is not merely an aspiration of believers, but is a social and political reality to be embodied in communal choices and endeavors. Solidarity, then, is the concrete recognition that the future of each individual is connected to the future of all; indeed, “no one is saved alone.”

“The close link between subsidiarity and solidarity thereby becomes evident. When subsidiarity is not linked to solidarity, it ends up becoming merely the protection of particular interests; when solidarity is not supported by subsidiarity, it degenerates into a form of welfare that does not foster responsibility.”

This conflation of political and spiritual matters is a theocratic assumption not a democratic principle.

“Welfare” by the state interferes with this church’s ability to have power and influence over “the poor” which is promoted as the focus of the its concern. Dependency rather than love is the seat of its power. Voting is not mentioned, thus this social doctrine is not built on a democratic foundation nor on liberty of conscience.

“Community” is lauded over and over but this should not be confused with an independent polity that is not beholden to religious interests. In the context of statecraft, sectarian politics, and the “AI” oligarchy, the church wants jurisdiction over the digital world to order it according to its will.

Integral Human Development (Liberation Theology)

Section 83: “Development is integral when it is not limited to the economic sphere, but promotes quality of life in its spiritual, cultural, moral and relational dimensions, while respecting our common home, the diversity of peoples and their ways of life.

Section 84: “Today, the concept of integral human development is a benchmark for the evaluation of integral ecology, which has become an indispensable dimension of the Church’s Social Doctrine.”

This church has never done anything to realize these visions of “human” grandeur. In later in the article we show historical and modern institutional failures that share the same pattern; “rules for thee, not for me.”

In the section called “an examen for the Church” Leo writes,

“In the ecclesial context, the common good takes the form of a synodal approach for mission at the service of the Kingdom. Indeed, the Church is the ‘communitarian and historical subject of synodality and mission.’

“This requires attention to the way decisions are taken and responsibilities are exercised. The Final Document of the Synod identifies a culture of transparency, accountability and evaluation as key practices for missionary transformation.”

Leo is outlining solutions for his church and other states while advocating for governance structures for his church. Which suggests he is offering moral prescriptions for medicine his own church has not taken.

The Apology for Slavery: “You Keep Using That Word”

What is an apology?

We think of an apology as deep regret and heartfelt sorrow which takes full responsibility, without equivocation or excuse making, and also offers restitution or repair so far as possible for the harm caused.

That’s a modern construction of the word.

“Apology” comes from Late Latin and the Greek apologia which literally means “a speech in defense.” In this context, it is an excuse, a self-justification, an argument to evade responsibility and culpability.

Section 176 is apologetics not an apology. It is public messaging not contrition.

There are many reasons why this should not be celebrated as a sincere expression of regret with a corresponding commitment to change. Here are just a few.

Pilate’s Wash Basin: “Sorrywashing” Responsibility

His hands never got clean. Pilate washing his hand’s of guilt.

Slavery and colonialism would need several encyclicals to cover the abuses and harms committed by the church led by multiple popes over several centuries.

Embedding this apology within accusations of a“new form of slavery” is consistent with how the plight of Black and indigenous people have been used by this church to advance other aims. Their “inalienable dignity” doesn’t merit more than being used to shield his church from criticism (see Sections 58 & 59 of the encyclical) as he defends her conduct. Notice “sin” is never mentioned in relationship to these crimes.

Often papal apologies acknowledge that “mistakes were made” without centering responsibility within the institution or on (often beatified) papal individuals.

(For example, there is no explicit mention that Leo X confirmed papal endorsement of slavery and colonial expansion. This is significant considering the current pope’s choice of name.)

“All too often the ecclesial apologies concerning historical violence done to indigenous communities and racialized minorities, or in the case of the clergy sexual abuse crisis, feel inadequate.

”Most often they express deep sorrow while taking pains to frame transgressions as being carried out by a minority or a few bad individuals who committed a harm. The apologies fall short because they apologize for complicity but not culpability in the horrible violence that has occurred.”—Meghan J. Clark

This is exactly how Leo’s apology for slavery is structured.

Let’s contemplate this statement from Section 176,

“In the development of her doctrine, the Church has gradually come to a deeper awareness of the gravity of these issues. It is true that past events cannot be judged anachronistically, as though the moral criteria that matured over time had always been available.”

He is saying that today we know that slavery is wrong. But his church and his papal predecessors lived in a time when society didn’t think it was wrong. And by the way, shame on anyone who judges people in the past by today’s standards.

These equivocations start in the second sentence of the section, which let’s you know where this is headed. While reading these words you can hear the sound of hands being washed in a basin.

The whole Bible was available to churchmen by which many people understood that slavery and colonialism was wrong. People who could not read knew it was wrong.

Thus “the moral criteria” he invokes so freely elsewhere was available and known by his church when they blessed and justified abject depravity and cruelty. This church knew slavery and colonialism were wrong, that they sinned against God and humanity.

Their prelates, priests, and officials had the most opportunity of anyone during those centuries to understand how terrible it was. But they chose profit and power over (Biblical) principle.

Both believers and unbelievers at the time understood that slavery and colonialism were wrong and said so. The people being plundered and exploited knew it wrong and cried out for hundreds of years for mercy and relief. But the Roman Catholic Church did nothing to help them and everything to exploit them.

When Jesus saw the wondering crowds He was moved with compassion. Why weren’t these vicars of Christ and their agents moved by compassion at the suffering of entire nations?

Our emphasis here is on “Roman Catholic Church” because this isn’t a discussion about magisterial Protestantism, the British Empire, or slavery and genocide by the United States. Leo seeks to bring these other bad actors into the frame to distract from his church’s own culpability.

The Roman church claims to be the Mother of all churches, he claims to be the replacement of Jesus Christ on earth, and this encyclical is a vision for a new era beyond the risks of “AI.” It condemns all other systems not based on his doctrines as “Babel” (sections 1, 7-10)

But if an institution can not fully own up to its own responsibilities without making excuses how trustworthy is it really? If Babel has slaves and you have slaves what’s the difference? If Babel plunders nations and you get a kickback of the plunder that’s not oppostion, that’s partnership.

“But Everyone Was Doing It”: Deflection of Responsibility.

Wildebeest following the herd instinct.

In his apology, Leo is careful to spread responsibility around and mention how “society” (as in the Babel builders?) and individuals also had slaves.

But he wants us to behold! and admire how fast his church learned,

“Yet neither can we deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery. In antiquity and the Middle Ages many individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves.

“Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to requests from Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of ‘infidels.’ It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated…

“This development offers a clear example of the Church’s growth in understanding the perennial truths of Revelation that she safeguards.

“Although there was not always consistency in practice — given that slavery was long tolerated before being unequivocally condemned — there has been a continuous affirmation throughout history of the dignity of every human being, created in the image of God, even if it took eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized.”

A true modern apology does not spend time explaining how much better the wrongdoer has become. Or how “continuous” their bare minimum efforts were in the face of catastrophic failures. And at what point does an institution, by its persistent support for atrocity and violence, forfeit the exalted roles it assigns itself?

Again this is apologetics not contrition or sorrow for sin or these crimes against humanity. By hiding in the “Babylonian crowd” and going along to get along don’t you forfeit the position of leadership?

But its worse than simply failing to lead.

The Roman church did not simply move with the crowd, it articulated religious justifications for slavery, divided the world between two slave powers, bought and sold slaves, acquired land and built enduring institutions with blood money from the trafficking of human souls.

The apology as an expression of regret does not communicate the extent and weight of these sins at all.

“Complicity acknowledges some involvement, largely centered around an individual failure to stop or correct an injustice. However, while doing so, it lessens the responsibility of those within that larger system which enabled that failure to address injustice. Moral culpability, meanwhile, is about taking actual responsibility for wrongdoing. In common parlance, complicity is passive and culpability is active when it comes to one’s relationship to the harm committed”—Meghan J. Clark

“Pardon Me”: An Offer That Cannot Be Refused?

Here is the difference between a good apology and a bad apology,

“The good apology must go beyond complicity by recognizing culpability in wrongdoing and harm when one was an active participant.

“The bad apology, on the other hand, avoids including the speaker in the story either by focusing on their feelings or making the harm about the actions of other outliers.”—Meghan J. Clark

How would you characterize Leo and his church’s apology?

“It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord. For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.”—Section 176

Why do so many seem so impressed by these statements?

There is no commitment to reform nor an offer of reparations or repair. So what prevents the same sort of compromises from happening again?

This statement is the epitome of sorrywashing of history by papal figures. It somewhat recognizes complicity of individuals and “ecclesiastical institutions” yet his church is never explicitly culpable for its own autonomous, institutional role.

He asks for pardon “in the name of the Church” which does not definitively mean the Church is acknowledging or bearing any responsibility. It is not clear, especially considering the equivocations of the previous paragraphs, if the “for this” in the statement is referring to the slavery or only to “the deep sorrow” people feel when they think about the “immense suffering and humiliation.”

In 2023 the Church declared that the Doctrine of Discovery was not a part of the teaching of the Catholic Church. This is less denunciation and more after the fact absolution for the sake of the institution. It is reputation repair not repentance.

In Section 176 “the Church” is being magnanimously invoked as an advocate for those individuals who did wrong and were wronged but not as a guilty party that is responsible in and of itself.

The Roman Church here is associating itself with blame, on the terms of a substitutionary sacrifice; bearing representative guilt while remaining “blameless” and above moral reproach, civil accountability, or financial liability. It “accepts responsibility” on the terms of leadership not actual guilt.

This is more in line with the behavior of a political entity than a spiritual community.

But it gets worse.

Hypocrisy: The Form without the Godliness

We are warned in the Scriptures against those,

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”—2 Timothy 3:5

Remember, this encyclical is an audition for this pope and his church to lead us away from the Babel of tech oligarchy and messy democracy and toward the “city of God.”

And this apology is contained in the sections meant to rally us against “new forms of slavery.” But is the church done with old slavery?

Alienable Rights

Opus Dei (“Work of God” in Latin) is a personal prelature of the Catholic Church and an official institution of this church. Not an offshoot or fringe group.

For decades Opus Dei has been credibly accused of every violation of “human dignity” imaginable including human trafficking and vile exploitation.

The activities of this Catholic order contradicts the vision outlined over and over in the doctrines of this church. There is clear evidence that it is a corrupt and abusive cult. Yet Opus Dei continues to operate freely within the Roman church and on its behalf.

Accusations of human trafficking, slavery, by numerous official Catholic orders have persisted for decades. Why hasn’t the “moral criteria” which is so mature within this church moved decisively to end these practices?

(On March 16, Gareth Gore the author of Opus: The Cult of Dark Money, Human Trafficking, and Right-Wing Conspiracy inside the Catholic Church met with Leo at the Vatican. While this meeting may represent some progress for some it not clear what if anything will be done to change the status quo.)

The patterns we can discern in Section 176 continue even as the Roman church professes to have grown and learned. This impunity and entitlement comes from expecting to receive pardon without repentance or reform. “Pardon me” in this letter and all the other erstwhile apologies is less a request and more like a polite royal expectation.

The encyclical speaks of “inalienable dignity” but it still appears that no price is too high for the church to avoid scandal and to keep a firm grasp on power, as long as powerless others are paying that price.

A Political Silence

In several sections of the letter Leo condemns behavior by states who use “AI” to more efficiently kill and destroy. No matter how “autonomous” the weapon, responsibility rests with states to safeguard the safety and dignity of innocents in war.

If you squint a little it’s possible to see in these criticisms a condemnation of Israel and its rampage through Palestine and the Middle East, maybe.

Israel is conducting a genocide in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It has followed through on its threat to do to South Lebanon what it did to Gaza.

The evidence of Israel’s conduct of war fulfilling every aspect of the international definition of genocide is overwhelming.

Yet there is no mention of this in the relevant sections of the encyclical.

There has been no public outcry by the institution which is positioning itself as the moral conscience of the world. “Humanity’s Pope” is publicly silent and inactive on this issue, just as his predecessor Francis was. This goes beyond the flaws of individuals alone. It is an institutional pattern.

Before and during World War II, both Pope Pius XI and Pius XII were said to be practicing a “holy silence”; courageous strategy which played a very weak hand as well as possible. But that’s not true of Pius XI nor is it true of Pius XII.

The priorities of the church and the papacy during that time were to protect the institution at any cost. In April 1939 Pius said the church,

“loved Germany. We are pleased if Germany is great and powerful. And we do not oppose any particular form of government, if only the Catholics can live in accordance with their religion.”

Does Leo love the state of Israel too, even though Palestinians are being exterminated by the tens of thousands? Meanwhile, Maronites and other Christians, have been spat on, attacked and killed and churches have been destroyed though state-sponsored violence.

Perhaps an institution with fewer resources and smaller scope could not be expected to know for sure what’s happening within a war zone. But the Vatican has the most extensive and the oldest human intelligence network in the world.

Servizio di Intelligence Vaticano or “The Entity,” if it exists, is spoken of in the same breath as the top tier spy agencies. This church-state also has close ties with the CIA (nicknamed “Catholics In Action”).

Surely, The Vatican knows exactly what is happening through the Middle East and in Palestine. Still there is silence. But it is not holy and has never been holy.

It is a political silence.

No calls to protect the inalienable dignity of the Palestinians. No protests over the systematic destruction of Lebanon. No open criticism of the U.A.E. over its genocidal behavior in Sudan or of Modi in Kashmir.

But considering the political history of the Roman church, the irony of these complaints is not lost on me,

“In condemning the Roman Catholic Church in general…the Vatican’s critics…have unwittingly paid it a great compliment. They take the church’s claims to moral leadership seriously, and then they condemn it for not living up to this standard. In fact, the papacy acted the way that organizations and governments usually behave: as amoral institutions out to protect their interests. Its behavior during the war, then, was hardly surprising.”—Edward Shapiro

This is what we should keep in mind about the pomp-saturated, effusively praised, grandly titled Magnifica Humanitas; this church-state union maintains the same pattern as every other political institution.

The encyclical is a work of politics not morality, subject to the same political expediency and circumstantial incentives as secular policy-making. Because the church is conducting statecraft.

And all the history and all the hypocrisy, all the atrocities and all the sabotage, all the compromises and all the lies illustrate precisely why separation of church and state is so vital and indispensable.

We are speaking of acts and realms that go far beyond what a simple church, no matter its size and scope, should be involved in. This illustrates why religious institutions are ill suited for the responsibilities of statecraft.

Adopting (Roman) Catholic Social Doctrine as a policy and civil platform to solve the problems outlined in the encyclical would be dangerous and ineffective. There simply is no evidence that the church in its own organization has made it work.

The calls for reform it sends through this letter and countless others have never been answered by its own institutions. And looking to them as an ally or (God forbid) a savior against the “AI” oligarchy or to fix broken political systems is not wise. The Roman church has no track record of putting other’s interests before its own.

This why we believe Section 176 is the cynical heart of the document.

The apology, offering the opportunity to review an institutional history which spans centuries, is the most straight forward way to assess whether this office and this institution are trustworthy.

Should we apply their prescriptions to our needs? Are they practicing what Leo and recent popes appear to be “preaching”?

A hundred years from now what will this church be apologizing for that it could have known was wrong right now? Gaza? Opus Dei? The Robert’s Court? El Salvador and CECOT? Something else which is currently hidden waiting to be revealed?

The evidence of past and current behavior makes it abundantly clear that following them would be unsafe. Despite all the rhetoric, the nature of this tree remains the same.

“Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”—Matthew 7:16

“I Am Roman”: Can a Papal Vision Fulfill the American Dream?

What does it mean to be an American? This is a fundamental question that’s on the table in the United States today. J.D. Vance and others have sought to re-establish American citizenship on the same “blood and soil” foundations of sectarian Europe.

They reject America as an ideal that anybody can embrace.

This is one reason why the conservative movement seeks to destroy birthright citizenship and replace it with an ethnic-religious citizenship hierarchy with white conservative Christians at the top and Black people (regardless of belief) at the bottom.

The racism is obvious but hiding in plain sight are the sectarian underpinnings.
(There is a lot more to say about race and sectarianism. Our framework of “Saint Crow” which is our nickname for the updated sectarian version Jim Crow.)

To be fully American one needs to be conservative Christian and only these individuals would qualify for the all the “rights, privileges and immunities” of citizenship.

But the America which became more of a possibility after the Reconstruction Amendments and the passage of the Voting Acts of 1965 rejects these notions.

The vision of an America “without a king and without a pope” is one where patriotic identity and loyal citizenship is based on an embrace of Constitutional principles and civic norms not sectarian affiliation.

A world ruled by Caesars and popes have never been free.

By building a democratic republic based on anti-magisterial Protestantism declaring church/religion and state are separate and liberty of conscience is nonnegotiable, the U.S. polity overtime rejected the blood and soil notions of nation building.

This means, to Vance’s horror, an immigrant whether documented or not can be as American as any citizen because they embrace the secular civic virtues of the American Constitution.

Those virtues guarantee equality before the law, no religious tests, freedom of speech, freedom from blasphemy laws, freedom of assembly, freedom from unlawful search and seizure; all protections which no sectarian blood and soil polity as ever bestowed or guaranteed as rights.

Liberty, not on the basis of toleration, subject to the disposition of rulers and prelates, but rights under the laws which establish the state.

This is our birthright as Americans which anyone can admire, emulate, long for and share whether they are citizens or not. Elected officials, civil servants, and new citizens all pledge loyalty to the Constitution for these reasons.

Birthright citizenship guarantees something else: you don’t have to believe in these things in order to be a citizen. Thus, it is possible to be a U.S. citizen, be completely opposed to all that “America” represents and in the name of saving it or fixing it undermine the very principles for which it stands.

Much is made of Leo being the first American pope and for many Americans that carries certain connotations which need some examination.

The former Robert Prevost was born in the United States. In August of 2015, he became a naturalized citizen of Peru and retains his duel American-Peruvian citizen as the Bishop of Rome.

While addressing a crowd in Rome and paraphrasing both Augustine and Pope John Paul, Leo emphatically declared “I am Roman.”

Some would argue this is simply affirming his affinity with city he most directly serves as bishop. Keeping in mind our discussion about what it means to be American; what does it mean to be Peruvian? What does it mean to be Roman?

In Peru, the Roman Catholic Church enjoys a very special status outlined in Article 50 of its state constitution:

“Within a regime of independence and autonomy, the State recognizes the Catholic Church as an important element in the historical, cultural and moral formation of Peru, and lends its collaboration. The State respects other confessions and can establish forms of collaboration with them.”

If the U.S. Constitution read this way there would be fertile ground for the argument that we are a “Christian nation.” But it doesn’t.

The Peruvian state pledges to “collaborate” with the Roman Catholic Church, a church with a history of engaging in statecraft to advance its own interests even when they contradict the interests of a state.

There are a number of ways to interpret “Roman-ness” but for our purposes let’s think about what that means in the context Leo XIV.

Church and state are definitely not separated in Vatican City, where popes reign as sovereign kings and the head of the church. Some argue that pontiffs never claimed to be emperors but its clear that European rulers felt accountable to and were crowned under the authority of popes. In an age where we’ve enjoyed the benefits of separation of church and state it may be hard to imagine the import of this.

But in the American Constitution church and state are separate.

The first clause of the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress (and states after the Civil War) to establish religion. The second clause, “free exercise of religion” would be impossible with the first. Article VI of the Constitution prohibits “religious tests” for elected officials, ever:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

“American Pope” is a contradiction going beyond cultural juxtapositions and historical anomalies. It is as much a contradiction as an “American King.” But that may be the point.

It was not a coincidence when the Roman church elected the first Polish pope during the era of Polish Solidarity movements which were destabilizing the Soviet Union. Could that pattern be repeating now?

Leo is undoubtedly a U.S. citizen by birthright but he rejects the notion that a proper state can function well without religious establishment.

This is an important context to read Magnifica Humanitas within.

Given his life experience and the throne upon which he sits, it would be impossible for Leo to prescribe state based and political prescriptions without the basic goal of establishing religion according to the Peruvian and Vatican models.

Baseball, hot dogs, Chicago and families ties can denote a certain affinity. This can not be confused with loyalties to the Constitutional principles which made those things possible in a U.S. context.

The United States is not founded upon any religious creed and Magnifica Humanitas is arguing, among other things, that the American experiment should shift its basis from secular non-establishment to Catholic Social Doctrine. Otherwise it is a Babel building project holding back the establishment of the “city of God.”

“Stealing the Fire from Under the Pot”

Iran understood the way to undermine U.S. advantages and weaken their morale.

We do not view Magnifica Humanitas as a benign document nor its spiritual pronouncements as superstitious garland decorating its criticism “AI.”

Since repetition deepens the impression let’s go back to what Madison said,

“We remonstrate…Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution…”

Magnifica Humanitas is doctrine as grand strategy and a polemical shot across the bow of the notion of secular government. And it’s crafted in a way which incorporates the rhetoric of democracy while shifting ultimate authority away from democratic institutions into a “polar opposition” where church and state co-exist as near equal counterparts.

The state supports the work of the church and the church legitimates and sanctifies the state preventing a national project from becoming “Babel.”

“Unity in diversity” sounds good but look closer: he offering what Americans were already able to accomplish under a secular constitution. Since (Roman) Catholic Social Teaching is a doctrine of the church, what institution would be better situated to guide states in their quest to realize its principles?

There is a war stratagem popularly called “Stealing the Fire from Under the Pot.” In the recent war, which most observers believe the U.S. lost, Iran used this stratagem effectively by damaging U.S. infrastructure in Gulf states and closing the Strait of Hormuz where one fifth of the world’s oil shipments pass.

Stealing the fire means,

“…instead of attacking enemy's fighting forces, direct attacks against their ability to wage war. Literally, take the fuel out of the fire.”

Iran could never win a direct, sustained military confrontation with the United States and Israel. So it prepared for a prolonged conflict and attacked where U.S. interests are most vulnerable: the price of oil, the global economy, midterm election anxiety, and American political will.

In a polemical contest of ideas, if you can usurp enough of your opponent’s arguments while sowing doubts about their ability to deliver what they are promising without appearing to attack popular ideas, it impacts their ability to make convincing arguments.

Whether its “Babel vs. the City of God” or “Inalienable Rights vs Inalienable Dignity” or the “AI” oligarchy vs everyone else, Magnifica Humanitas tries to douse the most potent arguments against its vision neutralizing any arguments against it. In some regards it is a very skillful work of rhetorical appropriation both theologically and politically.

“Inalienable dignity” as a countermeasure to “inalienable rights” while at the same time attacking “the pursuit of happiness” as a wholly selfish endeavor.

Another usurpation is applying “Babel” or “Babylon” to secular governments “which do not acknowledge God” when Babylon has historically and Biblically been applied to the nature and aims of the Roman church.

In neither case can he completely discredit these arguments. But by usurping them or redefining them, the letter indirectly undermines secular, democratic ideas while seeking to appropriate or redefine those principles which threaten the success of his own. This is not the work of a benign state or a simple church.

The Counsel of Flamininus

Titus Quinctius Flamininus,

“…(229-174 BCE) was a consul and military commander of the Roman Republic during the Second Macedonian War, who decisively defeated Philip V of Macedon (r. 221-179 BCE) at the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BCE and negotiated the Peace of Flamininus, which established Roman control in Greece.”—Donald Wasson

How did Flamininus establish control over the famously stubborn Greeks?

He was known as an able administrator as well as a skilled general. During his time the Greeks were tired of being ruled by Philip of Macedon. And when they weren’t complaining about him they were fighting each. They were jealous for their privileges as a free people and did not want to be ruled by non-Greeks with no due regard for their concerns.

Enter Flamininus, who loved Greek culture and spoke their language fluidly. He promised freedom from Macedonian oppression proclaiming that the Greeks should be free from tyranny. He traveled to various Greek provinces to give lengthy speeches attesting his love for them and of Roman concerns about their liberty.

And many believed these tales.

When Phillip was finally defeated and tamed, were the Greeks finally free?

“At the Isthmian Games at Corinth in 196 BCE, Flamininus declared that the people of Greece were free, although Rome's definition of freedom may have differed from that of the Greeks. The Greeks were obligated to Rome, giving their support when and where it was demanded.”—Donald L. Wasson

Flaminninus didn’t overwhelm the Greeks with military force. He ultimately over came them with guile, diplomacy and political skill. By the time many understood what was happening, they had already turned much of their sovereignty and autonomy to Rome. They had helped destroy anyone who could resist.

In The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, Edward Luttwak observes,

“Having learned in the earlier republican period how to defeat their neighbors in battle by sheer tactical strength, having later mastered the strategic complexities of large-scale warfare in fighting the Carthaginians, the Romans finally learned that the most desirable use of military power was not military at all, but political; and indeed they conquered the entire Hellenistic world with few battles and much coercive diplomacy.”

“In the more abstract spheres of strategy it is evident that, whether by intellect or just traditional intuition, the Romans understood the subtleties of deterrence, and also its limitations. Above all, the Romans clearly realized that the dominant dimension of power was not physical but psychological—the product of others’ perceptions of Roman strength rather than the use of that strength. And this realization alone can explain the sophistication of Roman strategy at its best.”

When popes say “I am Roman” they are doing more than acknowledging a jurisdiction or an abstract heritage which long ago abandoned notions of conquest and domination. The chaos caused by “AI” and the implosion of American influence provides a grand opportunity for a church that is also a state. It is adept at recognizing political opportunities and moments to seize the initiative.

Magnifica Humanitas should be recognized for what it is; an offer to Western secular, democratic countries to have what it already possesses; the foundations of a free state.

It is a voice from a tree arguing in beautiful strains about the wonders of a state that acknowledges God without inalienable rights.

But that voice is talking a snake, a Trojan horse, a Flamininus speech. Of course a wolf praises liberty without a shepherd, for it will be free to eat the sheep.

We with Madison should be very alarmed because an “American pope” has offered to experiment with our liberties in name of saving us from ourselves. But that’s the work of the American people through its democratic institutions.

Beware of Greek baring gifts and Romans promising freedom.

Section 176: The Cynical Heart of Magnifica Humanitas

Watchlight Media — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 23:49:36 GMT

This is a portion of a much longer work called Anthropic’s Pope: Magnifica Humanitas is a Blueprint for a Christian Nation which will be released soon.
It examines the “AI” encyclical of Pope Leo XIV through a historical and political lens, treating The Vatican as a state and Leo as a king and political actor and not just as a religious figure.
Section 176 is a reference within Magnifica Humanitas containing what has come to be known as the church’s apology for slavery. But is it?

“You Keep Using That Word”: Which Apology?

What is an apology?

We think of an apology as deep regret and heartfelt sorrow that takes full responsibility, without equivocation or excuse making, and which also offers restitution or repair so far as possible for the harm caused.

That’s a modern construction of the word.

But our word “apology” comes from Late Latin and the Greek apologia which literally means “a speech in defense.” In this context, it is an excuse, a self-justification, an argument to evade responsibility and culpability.

Section 176 is apologetics not an apology. It is public messaging not contrition.

There are many reasons why this should not be celebrated as a sincere expression of regret with a corresponding commitment to change. Here are just a few.

Pilate’s Wash Basin: “Sorrywashing” Responsibility

His hands never got clean. Pilate washing his hand’s of guilt.

Slavery and colonialism would need several encyclicals to cover the abuses and harms committed by the church led by multiple popes over several centuries.

Embedding this apology within accusations of a“new form of slavery” is consistent with how Black and indigenous people have been used by this church to advance other aims. Their “inalienable dignity” doesn’t merit more than being used to shield his church from criticism (see Sections 58 & 59 of the encyclical) as he defends her conduct. Notice “sin” is never mentioned in relationship to the crimes committed.

Often papal apologies acknowledge that “mistakes were made” but without centering responsibility within the institution or on (often beatified) papal individuals.

(For example, there is no explicit mention that Leo X confirmed papal endorsement of slavery and colonial expansion. This significant considering the current pope’s choice of name.)

This is exactly how Leo’s apology for slavery is structured.

Let’s contemplate this statement from Section 176,

He is saying that today we know that slavery is wrong. But his church and his papal predecessors lived in a time when you just couldn’t be sure it was wrong. And by the way, shame on anyone who judges people in the past by today’s standards.

The equivocations start in the second sentence of the section, which let’s you know where this is headed. While reading these words you can imagine the sound of hands being washed in a basin.

The whole Bible was available to churchmen by which many people understood that slavery and colonialism was wrong. People who could not read knew it was wrong.

Thus “the moral criteria” he invokes so freely elsewhere was available and known by his church when they blessed and justified abject depravity and cruelty. This church knew slavery and colonialism was wrong, that they sinned against God and humanity.

Their prelates, priests, and officials had the most opportunity of anyone during those centuries to understand how terrible it was. But they chose profit and power over (Biblical) principle.

Both believers and unbelievers at the time understood that these institutions were wrong and said so. The peoples being plundered and exploited knew it wrong and cried out for hundreds of years for mercy and relief.

But the Roman Catholic Church did nothing to help them and everything to exploit them. The emphasis is on “Roman Catholic Church” because this isn’t a discussion about magisterial Protestantism, the British Empire, or slavery and genocide by the United States. Leo seeks to bring these other subjects into the frame to distract from his church’s own culpability.

The Roman church claims to be the Mother of all churches and this encyclical for the adoption of its vision for a new era beyond the risks of “AI.” All the while condemning all other systems not based on his doctrines as “Babel” (sections 1, 7-10)

But if an institution can not fully own up to its own responsibilities without making excuses how trustworthy is it really?

“Everyone Was Doing It”: Deflection of Responsibility.

Wildebeest following the herd instinct.

In his apology, Leo is careful to spread responsibility around and mention how “society” (as in the Babel builders?) and individuals also had slaves.

But he wants us to see and admire how fast his church learned.

“This development offers a clear example of the Church’s growth in understanding the perennial truths of Revelation that she safeguards.

Again this is apologetics not contrition or sorrow for sin or these crimes against humanity. By hiding in the “Babylonian crowd” and going along to get along don’t you forfeit the position of leadership?

But its worse than that.

The Roman church did not simply move with the crowd, it articulated religious justifications for slavery, divided the world between two slave powers, bought and sold slaves, acquired land and built enduring institutions with blood money from the trafficking of human souls.

The apology as an expression of regret does not communicate the extent and weight of these sins at all.

“But You Must”: An Offer You Cannot Refuse?

Here is the difference between a good apology and a bad apology,

“The good apology must go beyond complicity by recognizing culpability in wrongdoing and harm when one was an active participant.

“The bad apology, on the other hand, avoids including the speaker in the story either by focusing on their feelings or making the harm about the actions of other outliers.”—Meghan J. Clark

How would you characterize Leo and his church’s apology?

Is that it? Why do so many seem so impressed by these statements?

There is no commitment to reform nor an offer of reparations or repair. So what prevents the same sort of compromises from happening again?

This statement is the epitome of a self-centered sorrywashing of history by papal figures. It somewhat recognizes complicity of individuals and “ecclesiastical institutions” yet his church is never explicitly culpable for its own autonomous, institutional role.

He asks for pardon “in the name of the Church” which does not definitively mean the Church is acknowledging or bearing any responsibility. It is not clear, especially considering the equivocations of the previous paragraphs, if the “for this” in the statement is referring to the slavery or only to “the deep sorrow” people feel when they think about the “immense suffering and humiliation.”

In Section 176 “the Church” is being magnanimously invoked as an advocate for those individuals who did wrong and were wronged but not as a guilty party that is responsible in and of itself.

The Roman Church here is associating itself with blame almost on the terms of a substitutionary sacrifice; bearing representative guilt while remaining “blameless” and above moral reproach, civil accountability, or financial liability. This is more in line with the behavior of a political entity than a spiritual community.

But it gets worse.

Hypocrisy: The Form without the Godliness

We are warned in the Scriptures against those,

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”—2 Timothy 3:5

Remember, this encyclical is an audition for this pope and his church to lead us away from the Babel of tech oligarchy and messy democracy and toward the “city of God.”

And this apology is contained in the sections meant to rally us against “new forms of slavery.” But is the church done with old slavery?

Alienable Rights

Opus Dei (“Work of God” in Latin) is a personal prelature of the Catholic Church and an official institution of this church. Not an offshoot or fringe group.

For decades Opus Dei has been credibly accused of every violation of “human dignity” imaginable including human trafficking and vile exploitation.

Again accusations of human trafficking, slavery, by a official Catholic order have persisted for decades. Why hasn’t the “moral criteria” which is so mature within this church moved decisively to end these practices?

A Political Silence

If you squint a little it’s possible to see in these criticisms a condemnation of Israel and its rampage through Palestine and the Middle East, maybe.

Yet there is no mention of this in the relevant sections of the encyclical.

Before and during World War II, both Pope Pius XI and XII were said to be practicing a “holy silence”; courageous strategy which played a very weak hand as well as possible. But that’s not true of Pius XI nor is it true of Pius XII.

The priorities of the church and the papacy during that time were to protect the institution at any cost. In April 1939 Pius said the church,

“loved Germany. We are pleased if Germany is great and powerful. And we do not oppose any particular form of government, if only the Catholics can live in accordance with their religion.”

Servizio di Intelligence Vaticano or “The Entity,” if it exists, is spoken of in the same breath as the top tier spy agenies. This church-state also has close ties with the CIA (nicknamed “Catholics In Action”).

Surely, The Vatican knows exactly what is happening through the Middle East and in Palestine. Still there is silence. But it is not holy and has never been holy.

It is a political silence.

But considering the political history of the Roman church, the irony of these complaints is not lost on me,

This is what we should keep in mind about the high minded, pomp-saturated, effusively praised, grandly titled Magnifica Humanitas; this church-state union maintains the same pattern as every other political institution.

The encyclical is a work of politics not morality, subject to the same political expediency and circumstantial incentives as secular policy-making. Because the church is conducting statecraft.

We are speaking of acts and realms that go far beyond what a simple church, no matter its size and scope should be involved in. This illustrates why religious institutions are ill suited for the responsibilities of statecraft which should benefit all regardless of religion.

This shows why adopting Catholic Social Doctrine as a policy and civil platform is dangerous and ineffective.

This why we believe Section 176 is the cynical heart of the document.

The apology, offering the opportunity to review an institutional history which spans centuries, is the most straight forward way to assess whether this man and this institution are trustworthy.

Should apply their prescriptions to our needs? Are they practicing what Leo and recent popes appear to be “preaching”?

A hundred years from now what will this church be apologizing for that it could have known was wrong right now? Gaza? Opus Dei? The Robert’s Court? El Salvador and CECOT? Something else which is currently hidden waiting to be revealed?

The evidence of past and current behavior makes it abundantly clear that following them would be unsafe. Despite all the rhetoric, the nature of this tree remains the same.

“Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”—Matthew 7:16

Thanks for reading The Lantern! This post is public so feel free to share it.

The Lost Cross: Crossism, Saint Crow, and the Post-Reformation West

Watchlight Media — Tue, 19 May 2026 06:09:45 GMT

Bottom Lines Up Top:

I will mostly refer to “Christian nationalism” as “crossism” (cross-ism) and/or religious nationalism.
We are losing the conviction that our society does not need a religious identity to have unity and stability.
Many of the political, economic, social, and technology developments are not advancements. Whatever their short term benefit they undermine the foundation of what made the Protestant Reformation (and the radical, non-magisterial Reformation after it) possible and sustainable.
The Post Reformation West is directed by a post-Reformation United States.
Foreign policy always becomes domestic policy.

“The Post-Reformation Era”

We live in an era of “posts.” “Post-modernism”, “post-industrial”, “post-liberal”, “post-enlightenment”, “post-Cold War.” “Post 9/11.”

And all of these labels have their place I suppose. But the most important post era, in my view, is our moving toward a “post-Reformation” West. And the implications of this development is most dangerous for any aspirations of safeguarding, much less advancing, democracy, freedom of conscience, and civil institutions.

Beyond any other development it was the Protestant Reformation which is responsible for the development of American Constitutional principles and separation of church and state. The civil and religious liberties which were embodied within the American Constitution developed over time.

The early Protestant Reformers (mostly) came to believe in a state/church separation from Rome but largely mimicked its model of church/state combination in practice. Those early struggles were over an individual’s and a state’s ability to choose which religious status quo they wanted to belong to: Catholic or Protestant. They could not opt out all together.

While the origins of non-establishment are deeply rooted in those breakages from Rome, English, Dutch, and German polities were often oppressive against religious dissenters and minorities too.

It was the later movements, often called the Radical Reformation, led by groups like the Anabaptists and later the Baptists which more clearly and steadfastly argued that in order for individuals to have full rights of conscience the state had to be neutral on questions of religion.

Roger Williams framed these arguments in ways which are familiar to us and were familiar to Jefferson and Madison. You cannot have civil liberties, governmental accountability, effective anti-corruption, or liberty of conscience without separation of church and state.

Understand that the foundation of most important ideas (whether right or wrong or ridiculous) permeating Western Civilization are only possible because of the decline of the power of religious nationalism.

Papal Rome is the oldest system of church/state combination and at the zenith of its power and influence, religious dissent (which was any idea that contradicted church spiritual or temporal authority) was punished by civil penalties, torture, exile, and/or death.

Colonialism, which was the continuation of the Crusades, was first undertaken by Catholic powers but then expanded by Dutch, German, and English Protestant countries. All in the name of God.

Remember, “Christian nationalism”, was invented in Europe not the United States and there are many forms of religious nationalism.

But the form counterfeiting true Christianity dominates because the Western powers, led by the United States and Europe, are the hegemonic powers of the global order.

What Could Have Been

There was a time when the United States was a beacon of progress and advancement because of its civil institutions and Constitutional framework. But the U.S., both its government and society, were resistant to following through on all its promises to all of its peoples.

Nevertheless, since those promises were in-wrought within the fiber of its Constitution upon which the rule of law was based, it was possible to change unjust laws and norms on a Constitutional basis.

Civil rights for Black people, for example, would have been impossible if the United States had been founded as a “Christian nation”: upon religious nationalism and sectarianism. Civil rights and civil liberties for anyone becomes impossible within a sectarian state. There can be no equality before the law because the law is anything the civil-religious rulers say it is.

For a time the influence of the United States inspired other societies to emulate its example of a polity drawn together by a civic identity rather than only religious and racial castes.

Please understand that those ideas were always contested, constantly sabotaged, and often misrepresented within the United States and across Europe.

The argument here is not that there was ever a time when these principles were ever fully realized as they aught to have been. The United States didn’t become a full fledged democracy until Reconstruction/the Second Founding and the passage of legislation beginning with Brown and culminating in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Which means that the greatest threat to American Democracy (and also to true democracy elsewhere), founded on a neutral notion of separation of church and state, was always the influences and spirits of the Confederacy. For if the Confederacy prevails here, religious fascism in Europe will prevail too.

Foreign Policy becomes Domestic Policy

After World War II, during the Cold War, the United States compromised nearly every aspect of the Constitution in its conflict with “godless” Communism.

By framing the conflict in spiritual terms while forming partnerships and military alliances with sectarian regimes and religious powers, the U.S. undermined its radical Reformation roots. Combining church and state in foreign policy has led to its combination within domestic policy and politics.

Church/state combination in Europe was curtailed but never eliminated. Many countries there have a church tax to support approved religions, monarchies in whom are vested the authority of a church and identity of a state, and other sectarian trappings.

As the United States used sectarianism as a pragmatic means of reducing Soviet influence, its own character shifted more visibly away from non-establishment of religion.

Domestically pressure on the wall of separation increased with the Red Scare, McCarthyism, and the rise of mainline Protestants clamoring for a form of civil religion that differentiates “us” from “them.”

Also the Cold War contest context also created the conditions that dismantled Jim Crow and legal apartheid in the South. The expansion of rights to a mostly Protestant community had the effect of shoring up separation of church and state and liberty of conscience for all.

By limiting, at a systemic level, the power of racial caste it diluted the influence of the sectarianism at the heart of all caste systems. In the South, West, and parts of the Midwest, it was just taken for granted that their “society” was based on a social hierarchy that advantaged a certain race, just as God intended.

When the Civil War then the Civil Rights movement undermined this logic, the sectarian notion that God and the white Christian church should run the state was also publicly discredited and undermined.

This tension between America’s Cold War sectarianism in its foreign policy and the unintended consequences of the conflict helping to advance civil rights would need to be resolved in some way. Unfortunately we most chose the wrong way.

Religious nationalism reinforces castes systems, especially racial hierarchies. Both the civil religion of mainline Protestantism in the 1940s and 50s and conservatives push to combine church and state are race-based religious nationalism. When the Civil Rights Movement made progress it undermined the logic and power of the establishment of religion that is inextricably linked to race and racism.

This is one reason the sectarian, Roman Catholic majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has made it its mission to undermine Black political power and every other advancement coming out of Reconstruction, The Second Founding, and the Civil Rights Movement.

With the hollowing of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais reducing VRA to a pretense, it ensure that the South will return to imposing its will on Black people locked out of political participation and power. All of this (and more) was orchestrated by a movement (led by Leonard Leo and others) which claims endorsement from God.

Jim Crow is dead, long live Saint Crow.

The Rise of Crossism

One aspect (among others) of American foreign policy which began to counterbalance the influence of Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement’s impact on separation of church and state is the unconditional support of Israel.

As the influence of its supporters in the United States grew, this lobby aligned itself with right wing, conservative “Christian nationalists” and “liberal” Democrats who were indifferent to consequences.

This unconditional support across the political and religious spectrum resulted in creating “exceptions” for Israel in international law as well as carve outs in domestic policy and law for “Jews” as the state defines them.

Of course there is no such thing as a one way door. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics widened these exceptions and created some of their own at the federal and state level.

And this alliance, combining unconditional support for Israel, tax support of religious institutions, normalized relationships with sectarian dictatorships, special treatment for (conservative) religious persons and practices, a “Judeo-Christian” worldview among other elements have slowly, over time changed law, regulation, taxation, all branches of the federal government, and the perception of ourselves as one people bound together by the Constitution.

That last point is very important: There is a rising assumption that Americans must have a shared religious identity to foster unity and to safeguard the stability of the nation.

In Israel, Zionism is the foundational ideology and official policy of the nation. Only Jews, as defined by the state, have self-determination guaranteed by the basic law. Religion and state are not separate in Israel.

Although one can be recognized as a Jew without believing in God you must agree with the ultimate objectives of the state which are framed and articulated in religious terms. Zionism is just another form of white religious nationalism, upheld and protected by Europe and the United States.

(I’m aware of the “secular origins” Zionism coming as it did from Eastern Europe. But it’s clear from the beginning the West interest in this movement was religious as well as colonial. When Israel was established there was a deliberate decision not to separate religion and state or to create a Constitution. These decisions have led to the current state which is un-apologetically sectarian.)

Wearing a Cross, but Refusing to Bear His Cross

The “Zion” in Zionism is a religious concept. But Israel is not Zion.

The “Christ” in “Christian nationalism” is a religious concept. But religious nationalism is never Christian. No state on earth is “Christlike.”

Jesus never sought for temporal, earthly, political power. He unequivocally said “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Despite this, conservatives and others in the United States want to establish the U.S. as a “Christian nation.” Many use Israel as a model of the white ethno-religious nationalism they want America to adopt. Others also use Medieval Europe, Papal Rome, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the British Empire as examples to emulate.

But you cannot be Christlike while disobeying Christ. Wearing a cross while refusing the bear the cross Jesus requires His followers to carry is a mockery of Christ.

This form of religious nationalism I call “crossism” (cross-ism) because there is nothing Christian about it and its a mockery of the life and character of Jesus to associate His name with this foolishness without protest.

Crossism in Europe and the United States produces the same characteristics religious Zionism does in Israel: a state that usurps and misappropriates the tenets, symbolism, and frameworks of true religion and twists them for political gain to justify sectarian interests wielding state power.

Its “having a form of godliness but denying the (spiritual) power thereof.”

And crossism is most hostile to true religion which upholds the Gospel and reveals the true character of Jesus Christ.

Neither Judaism nor Christianity originated in Europe. The early church was multicultural and sought to win the world for Christ through preaching, teaching, and baptizing alone.

They were persecuted for centuries for obeying Jesus. But when the church decided to join hands with European states and aligned its interests with the political interests of emperors and empires, it traded the Holy Spirit for state power.

The subsequent centuries of conquest, colonialism, plunder, and slavery in the name of God is a perversion of the Great Commission. While there were missionaries who went into all the world to share the real gospel of Jesus Christ many others were agents of the state.

These “hired shepherds” heralded a gospel of empire forcing people to accept a counterfeit religion that justified deception, plunder, force, and hypocrisy.

The failure of so-called Christendom in Europe to spread the true gospel and instead subjugate others opened the door to other religious movements like Islam and Buddhism to win converts. But the magisterial churches doubled down on coercion and force rather than return to persuasion.

A Lost Opportunity to Reject a “Lost Cause”

The decline of the colonial powers and the rise of the United States as a nonsectarian country gave the West an opportunity to shift from sectarian coercion to something more truly democratic. The U.S. had a chance to show the benefits of a society held together by a (Reconstructed) Constitution rather than crossism.

But among all the tests America failed perhaps the greatest failure is succumbing to the “third temptation” which the European church and polities also failed. During and after the Cold War we (ultimately) chose hegemony over our own heritage.

We traded the genius of our civil institutions for the follies sectarian entanglement and compromise.

We made ourselves vulnerable to the very same sectarian tactics used by Rome and the U.S. to undermine the Soviet Union. And now we find ourselves in the midst of an internal war most of us never dreamed we’d be fighting.

This “post-Reformation West” is founded on Europe’s failures and established by U.S. folly. Because of American behavior over decades the very idea of a nonsectarian society that prioritizes justice and equality is discredited. Our election of incompetent and cruel leaders has undermined confidence in American voters as measured and wise.

The support of genocide in Gaza (direct) and Sudan (tacit), the invasion of other countries on whims without regard to the international law, the breaking of agreements and willful duplicity, manipulation of markets, withdrawal of aid, the reestablishment of colonialism in markets and law, and many other things have discredited the American experiment around the world.

American-style, radical Protestantism is being blamed by magisterial Christianity as the cause of the chaos.

The moral center of the Western world has shifted from the United States toward Europe and its sectarian monarchies. While America relinquishes leadership in the world, it regresses to the Southern comfort of lost causes and other sectarian myths.

Exchanging the Cross for a Cause

You can not have civil liberties and civil rights without separation of church and state.

Slavery was a religious liberty violation. Slave status was a social death which removed all rights of citizenship making a person the property of a state and therefore stateless as a human being.

The breaking of the Confederacy broke the yoke of church/state combination, established birthright citizenship, and applied all the rights and protections of the federal Constitution to all the states. That includes non-establishment of religion which (eventually) undermined every aspect of “the lost cause” in law and practice.

It is no coincidence that the rise of crossism, religious nationalism, is hand in hand with the rise of spirit of the Lost Cause. Claiming that that the United States was founded as a Christian nation is the Lost Cause. Claiming to “rededicate” the nation to God, when the U.S. was never dedicated to God, is the Lost Cause. The sectarian six on the Supreme Court is outworking of the Lost Cause.

You can see this “Lost Cause-esque” myth-making among all the right wing parties in Europe. There was never a time when combination of religion and state in Europe or Canada or Australia or Israel or the United States ever resulted in more freedom and prosperity for the majority of the people. Establishing religion always results in more persecution, corruption, torture, destruction, hypocrisy, crime, cruelty, and fear.

Colonial-era America, where there were plenty of established churches, bears this out. And today so does the ICE raids, support for the Gaza genocide, and the attacks on civil liberties and civil rights today.

The West Goes South

“The West” is a rhetorical construction that has, in application, always been problematic. But it is useful here because, as a concept, it is most successful at highlighting the contradictions within the global hegemony.

By grouping countries which are dominated by white people within “democracies” of “Judeo-Christian heritage” benefiting from the same old structures at the expense of the global South, “The West” was primed to succumb to all its own inconsistencies.

This grouping is meant to signify a benign superiority based on morality, democracy, religious heritage, and economic savvy rather than racial caste, rigged systems and plunder. But the closer America moves toward Confederacy the more Europe will move toward fascism and “the West” is exposed for what it always was and also what it could have been.

With one American political party completely abandoning the “no king, no pope” foundations of the American republic things are turning full circle. Rather than the American experiment being the model for “a new birth of freedom” we’re regressing to an Old World model of might makes right, power is virtue, and the church should run the state.

The Reformation is not dead but the U.S. state can no longer be counted on to protect the principles of separation of church and state or liberty of conscience. And that means living in the Post-Reformation West will increasingly feel like living during the Inquisition.

Crossism and Saint Crow will put everyone who refuses to bow down to golden images under suspicion, under surveillance, and under pressure. We should do all we can to avoid or at least delay this reality.

But to do that we must understand what we’re up against.

This isn’t a game. The first Cold War wasn’t between the Soviets and the West. It was the internal conflict within the United State against the Confederacy. They lost the war but have been determined to prevail in the Cold Peace through guile, policy, politics, and when possible, violence.

While the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, we still need more Grants and fewer McClellans. Each of us have to ask ourselves which are we willing to be.

These Frameworks is Under Construction

Some people may not be accustomed to this mix of foreign policy, civil rights history, Civil War/Reconstruction history, race analysis, and religious liberty. I’m sure someone will accuse me various mistakes born of ignorance or malice.

But I hope these frameworks (crossism, Post-Reformation West, Saint Crow) provide analysis that helps you understand.

I believe the framework is sound. I plan to refine it further. I welcome your constructive feedback. Grace to you.

Thanks for reading The Lantern! This post is public so feel free to share it.

"Once Again": It Is What It's Always Been

Watchlight Media — Sat, 02 Aug 2025 00:59:03 GMT

Images from over a year ago when civilians were stripped, blindfold, aducted and taken to black sites. Many were beaten, starved, tortured, denied medical care, humilated. Some were raped and killed.

There are shifts underway regarding the narrative on what Israel is doing in Gaza.

Some of those shifts are welcomed but long overdue: admitting that the state of Israel, with widespread support of its citizens and the West, is deliberately starving Palestinians in Gaza, an indication this state is committing genocide.

But there are other shifts that take us further away from the truth and deeper into denial and lies. The sudden willingness to openly criticize Israel and Benjamin Netanyhu is accompanied by the same effort to shield Israel from the consequences of its own decisions and actions.

Not to mention the desire by European states to obscure their active participation in destroying Palestinian society.

You may have the impression that “the risk of genocide” or “Gaza starving” just manifested only a few days ago. That its only “now” that Israel has gone too far whereas before the support of the West accurately signaled war was being waged legally even ethically.

But this is a well crafted lie.

This starvation and destruction of Palestinian families, communities, land, industry, and civic institutions is all going according to methodical and strategic planning by the Israelis. Nothing that is happening to the Palestinians today is the result of an accident, a rouge IDF commander or unit, or simple rage going too far.

This is the plan.

Europeans, their states, their magisterial churches, and their industries are once again helping to facilitate and carry out a genocide at the beginning of a century. And we’ve watched for nearly two years an inevitable march of folly toward this ruin.

There is nothing complicated about this. We bring up complications when our own interests are at risk for telling the whole truth. There can be no excuse for attempting to exterminate an entire people.

If nothing justifies the Hamas attacks then the Hamas attacks can not justify genocide, the deliberate starving of. 2.2 million people, the intentional targeting of civilians resulting in at least 300,000 deaths by ordnance alone, a medieval siege, bombing areas called “safe zones,” snipers shooting little kids in the chest and head, Israeli soldiers shooting starving people at aid distribution sites, killing over 250 journalists and media workers or murdering paramedics and dumping their bodies and vehicles in mass graves then lying about it, repeatedly.

And all that barely scratches the surface of what the state of Israel is doing in Gaza.

The current conditions surprise no one who’s been paying attention at all to the developments in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

But the shift that’s being attempted is trying to portray the horrific existance of Palestinians as a recent turn of events or the fault of the UN. In other words Europeans want to say “we didn’t know it was going to get this bad” or “the right-wing Netanyhu government and Netanyhu himself are solely to blame for this.”

These are lies too.

Subscribe now

I started writing about Israel’s war on Gaza early in 2024.

I’ve assembled my pieces here to prove that it does not require a scholar, expert on genocide, a PhD in international affairs, a professional journalist, or a medical doctor in Gaza to see what’s been happening this whole time. Every single compoent of genocide and the intention to starve the population were obvious from the start.

These seven articles are my meager attempt to document and bear witness to what I saw beginning in February 2024.

When Snakes Fight (Poem)

Watchlight Media — Fri, 09 May 2025 17:49:42 GMT

When two snakes fight, what to do?

If you’re a mouse, cheer or boo?

Neither course is wise to pursue.

For whoever wins, the prize is you.

Subscribe now

Neither serpent is on your side.

Prepare to fight or run and hide.

Remember, to avoid a foolish end,

“The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.”

Their words like lyrics to a song;

Charming, not one step wrong.

But no mater what promises they make,

Always remember they’re still a snake.

Beware when called “child” or “Big Dog.”

Because flattery produces brain fog.

Avoid jumping on those bandwagons;

We’re all just mice facing dragons.

When snakes fight it’s not for health.

When snakes move it’s all for stealth.

When snakes speak it’s make believe.

Every breath is practice to deceive.

Wearing a suit, collar or distressed denim;

Social chameleons with in-veritable venom

A lesser evil neither rude nor smelly,

Still ends inside a beast’s dark belly.

True of serpents, dogs and swine too;

Keep your pearls or they’ll turn on you.

Distinctions are not differences, mate.

They all want to combine church and state.

The issues are fraught and loom large,

But they bicker over who’s in charge.

Not justice or mercy or a humble walk,

Just the leo’s share of the prey they stalk.

Their happy pursuits are cruel goals,

Nothing to do with saving souls.

From pious to vicious in one quick beat;

Mendacious prayers are grace before meat.

Did you listen to this little mouse?

Did you flee into a great big house?

Were you careful to cover your trail?

Are you certain they cannot see your tail?

When two snakes fight what to do?

Will the little mouse, cheer or boo?

There are many courses to pursue.

But the path to life is chosen by few.

Welcome to the Recrudescence: Saint Crow and an Age of Clay and Iron

Watchlight Media — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 13:02:27 GMT

Separate, unequal, and under siege: Welcome to Saint Crow.

“Ree·kruh·deh·sns” as a medical term means “a recurrence of unfavorable conditions” as in a relapse of a disease. It can also mean “the return of an undesirable idea.”

We’re not in 1950 or 1850 or even 1650. That would suggest we’re going in an infinite loop against our will. We are in 2025 with people who never left 1925, 1825, or 1625. They’ve passed these ideas down through families and churches and organizations and worked hard to bring us to the moment when their medieval futurism can be imposed on us all.

We’re not here because of time machines or some other peeped-in box of horrors.

We’ve entered an age of consequences visited upon us because of choices we made, decisions we avoided, and risks we played with as Western societies. We’ve seen these ideas play out all before but “though we knew all this” that knowledge didn’t stop us from going down pyrite elevators, twice.

What makes The Recrudescence different from other times is how much information we have on the past, how obvious the pitfalls were, and how intentional the plunge into the abyss has been.

We’re going to use this concept of returning to unfavorable ideas as a template for understanding the similarities to our past but also how the age we’re entering into is much, much worse.

This series is not meant to make one more depressed or discourage than you’re already tempted to be. There is hope but its a very “hard hope” and in order know how to get out of this age whole, we’ve got to understand what we’re actually up against.

Two themes we’ll explore are:

The Baptism and Ordination of Jim Crow

The efforts to establish a caste tier where magisterial Christians and aligned religious sects are above the rule of law are progressing rapidly.

From the Kennedy prayer case to pardoning J6 insurrectionists to deporting legal residents for pro-Palestinian activism to supporting religious education with taxes to forcing public venues to display a government version of the Ten Commandments, we are watching in real time the combining of church and state.

And what this means for liberty of conscience, citizenship, and civil liberties is living under a system where all your rights are dependent upon cooperation with a sectarian state that decides what religion is permitted and what is forbidden.

And if your religion says that the state has no right to meddle in issues of conscience, well, heresy just won’t be tolerated, boy.

All hail Saint Crow.

The Luxprint

There are many people claiming to be Christians but manifest a character very different from Jesus. But in His name and in the name of all things good and honorable they govern/rule, speak, act, and devise plans which undermine all that is good.

Some don’t even bother with much pretense although they claim to be acting in favor of good things. Others have a form of godliness, they say the right words and champion good sounding ideas but they aren’t at all what they seem.

This is not new. In fact this is very, very old.

Rather than embodying the character and work of Jesus they are undermining His precepts and working against His interests.

In this article, we’re going to examine the character and devices of one who has always wanted to replace Jesus, Satan, and see how his work and methods compare with those wanting to use state power to enforce Christian belief.

We’ll examine if are they following God’s plan or another blueprint altogether.

More to Come

We’re working hard on a number of projects so please keeping looking out for content.

Thank you to our Founding Members and paid subscribers. Without your support it would be much harder to produce this newsletter.

If you are not yet a paid subscriber or would like to become a Founding Member please do. You help us afford the subscriptions, tools and time that goes into this work.

Subscribe now

Advocacy: Letter to The Editor of the News Tribune

Watchlight Media — Thu, 10 Apr 2025 03:07:54 GMT

Here is a letter to the editor (LTE) which was accepted by the Jefferson City News Tribune and printed in their Sunday edition on April 6th.

For those without a subscription, here’s the full text of the LTE:

Dear Editor,

"I AM the Lord" Says the Missouri Senate (Title)

Jesus says, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” But SB594, a bill heard in the Senate Education Committee this past week, wants the government to step between your relationship with God and change the commandments too.

The bill would require all public schools to post a state-written version of the 10 Commandments not found in either Catholic or Protestant Bibles in every classroom.

The sponsor believes if his version hangs in schools then God will “return” there, school shootings will stop, and public schools will be moral again. But God says not one jot or tittle should be changed in His law (Matthew 5:18). How can disobedience be blessed?

This government version of the Commandments is incomplete, with many words removed, thus changing both context and meaning. It’s not clear if “I AM the Lord thy God” is referring to Jesus or to the government. After all, many jots and tittles are missing. So would they be Governor Kehoe’s commandments if he signed this into law?

My tongue is only partially in my cheek. This bill, and the committee hearing on it, highlights everything that’s wrong with religious persons and groups using state power to compel the public to adopt their doctrines, their dogmas, and their commandments. All it does is distort God’s character and encourages hypocrisy.

The United States is consistently the most church-going and church-supporting nation in the Western world. It is also the most religiously diverse. All this happened under our federal and state Constitutions without a church tax while prohibiting state-based Christianity.

The way to encourage more true religion is not to replace the Holy Spirit and a loving witness with legislation and hypocrisy. You can’t require the posting of “The 10 Commandments” and then pass “The Not-10 Commandments” into state statute. Even among the supporters, there is disagreement about what particular commandments mean and how they should be worded.Isn’t this the epitome of “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:9)?

There is a difference between faith, based on evidence and presumption, which ignores evidence. What evidence? Well, the same version of the Ten Commandments that’s in SB594 has been posted outside the Missouri State Capitol since June 28, 1958.

Has it worked for them?

If not, please call your Senator and your State Representative and urge them to oppose SB594.

Sincerely,

Subscribe now

Advocacy: Public Testimony Before A Senate Committee on SR 156

Watchlight Media — Thu, 10 Apr 2025 02:43:43 GMT

Note: Fast forward to the 35:54 minute mark to hear my exchange with a Senator on the committee.

Here are some quotes from Missouri Senate Resolution 156 which alarmed us:

“Whereas, Israel has been granted her lands under and through the oldest deed, as recorded in the Torah or Old Testament, a tome of scripture held sacred and revered by Jews and Christians alike;”

A deed is a signed legal document that transfers ownership of an asset from one party to another. Deeds in the United States are not religious or sectarian documents

What is eternity?

“…Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel;”

Jerusalem has been captured and recaptured at least 20 times. It's been claimed by about as many countries and empires, and by three of the world's major religions.

There are many political and legal disputes around Jerusalem that have yet to be settled. However they will be settled it is unlikely a resolution will come based on theological or sectarian consensus.

Whatever your religious beliefs around the modern State of Israel, no sectarian or theological viewpoint should be endorsed and proclaimed by a civil, legislative body Constitutionally required not to establish religion in any form.

You can listen to the entire hearing (20:17m) or fast forward to 35:54m for my interesting exchange with a member of the committee.

Advocacy: Testimony Against Religious Chaplains in Public Schools, SB49

Watchlight Media — Thu, 10 Apr 2025 02:19:20 GMT

James Madison was very concerned about chaplains representing religious views as avatars of the state. He spoke against employing a chaplain in the Congress and looking at the efforts today in Missouri to place “chaplains” in public schools, you can see his points.

Missouri Senate Bill 49 would allow volunteer chaplains to operate in public schools. These individuals would not be required to undergo any of the professional training which actual chaplains undergo. They would only need to be member of one of the faiths approved by the Department of Defense. Sponsors made it clear they did not intend for any faith or belief they opposed to actually have representation in public schools.

The real question is what isn’t wrong about this? Nothing in this bill will help public school students with mental health or character development. Especially when the Governor has made transferring public funds to private, religious schools a priority.

This bill was heard in the Missouri House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education and fortunately many committee members expressed many, many concerns about the bill. Since its already passed the Missouri Senate, this is our last opportunity to stop this from becoming law.

If you’re from Missouri, please contact members from the district you live in and your state legislators to express your concern. If you are not from Missouri you can still contact the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Ranking Member to express your concerns.

Testimony In Opposition to SB49 Which Allows Chaplains to be Placed In Public Schools:

This establishes religion. It creates the structures for school districts (local governments) to choose which religions will be included and represented and which religions/beliefs will be excluded. As the statements by the sponsors and the follow up questions indicated, this creates a whole host of problems and conundrums which have not be thought through thoroughly.

Allowing anyone to serve in this capacity with the only qualification being a member of a state approved list of religions moves us back to the colonial era and establishment churches. "Volunteer" based establishment is just as dangerous to our liberty of conscience as taxpayer subsidized establishment.

Creating a role for a state-endorsed religious "friend" who will high five and compliment young people in the halls may sound winsome and helpful but it is a dangerous precedent that won't stop there.

Since we are concerned about the well being of young people in public schools, perhaps we should spend more time and effort safeguarding public funding for public schools rather than transferring resources from them to private, religious schools via vouchers and charters in the name of "choice."

Creating a permission structure for communities to endorse specific forms of religion and therefore disenfranchise the beliefs of others encouraging inclusion of various beliefs via a political process is extremely disturbing.

This replaces the public square with the political arena, insuring that only the most politically powerful and connected religious communities will have a voice in these decisions. Minority beliefs will be further marginalized and all religious beliefs will be politicized.

Chaplaincy is more than high fives and a sympathetic ear. Avoiding the political pitfall of unfunded mandates does not dodge the problem of establishment of religion. Professional mental health services for young people is absolutely vital.

We should focus on improving access to those services and leave spiritual care to families and communities without the thumb of government tipping scales in favor or in opposition to certain beliefs.

The principles, letter, and spirit of our constitutional order are being imperiled by these proposals which undermine the protections of non-establishment of religion using free exercise of religion.

There was so much that the sponsors had not thought of; their inability to address numerous issues came across as the experimentation with our liberties which James Madison warned against.

I would urge the committee to read Thomas Jefferson's Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom and Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments. This bill and others like it are risky infringements on students and all of our liberties of conscience and should not be encouraged or advanced.

Please do not pass this legislation nor seek to improve it. It will simply give a foothold to efforts to increase sectarian influence in public schools while taking away resources which will actually make our children healthy and safe.

Share The Lantern

Advocacy: Testimony Opposing Missouri SB594

Watchlight Media — Thu, 10 Apr 2025 01:35:09 GMT

We’ve been busy during this legislative session tracking and opposing various bills which would establish religion. Senate Bill 594 would require all public and charter school to display an abbreviated, incomplete version of the 10 Commandments.

It is neither Catholic nor Jewish nor Protestant. Both the sponsor of the bill and members of the Senate Education Committee expressed the hope that simply posting these words would bring God back, increase morality, and reduce school shootings.

The bill may be voted out of committee Thursday,April 10 so if you live in Missouri please contact the members of the Senate Education Committee and let them know how unacceptable this establishment of religion truly is.

Man Against Pawns and Puppets: Zelenskyy's Fight to Keep His Soul

Watchlight Media — Mon, 03 Mar 2025 19:56:41 GMT

Hi.

There are a few considerations left out of many accounts of the recent confrontation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, U.S. President Donald Trump, and U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance.

Here are some additional things which you should think about:
(This is an analysis not an expression of my beliefs)

1. All geopolitical conflicts are sectarian conflicts on some level.

The West represents Roman Catholic and Magisterial Protestantism, what is usually referred to as Europe's "Christian heritage."

Russia represents the interests of the Russian Orthodox Church (R.O.C.) which, like European state-based Christianity, is imperialist and colonial. The R.O.C., like the Putin regime, does not recognize Ukraine as a separate country with an autonomous people or religion. In other words Ukrainians are heretics in their view.

The West is split into various factions, some who agree with Putin/R.O.C. on Ukraine's heresy/non-existence and those who are eager to preserve Western Christianity's sphere of European influence and to pressure Russia on a variety of fronts.

Neither are especially democratic.

2. Ukraine has always been seen and used as a pawn in geopolitical "great games."

The Biden Administration was not trying to win a war, it was trying to bleed Russia as slowly as possible.

That administration also parlayed Russia's aggression into a further expansion of NATO, which was a big strategic blunder on Putin's part. But it should be understood that neither the U.S. nor Europe are the good guys.

For decades Europe/US have been on an expansionist campaign using NATO, IMF, and the World Bank to "contain" Russia. But all of these actions broke promises assuring Russia the West would respect it's spheres of influence.

You can talk about former Soviet countries' right to choose but as you're talking remember: The United States made those promises, which means at some point the freedom of those other peoples didn't matter. And United States would never allow another country to place weapons or build oppositional alliances in its "backyard."

Russia has never accepted that the rules should be different in its sphere.

3. One sectarian element seems to always go unnoticed.

In the aftermath of the UN resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine, where the U.S. voted with Russia: Iran, North Korea, Sudan and other "pariah" nations are always mentioned in order to shame the Trump Administration in the eyes of the public.

But do you know what country voted with the US and Russia but doesn't get mentioned in these attempts to shame? Israel.

Israel is a consistent ally of Russia and the current prime minister counts Putin as a friend. If Israel's steadfast support for right wing, expansionist, colonial projects and alignment with every fascist party in Europe and the United States isn't under consideration, then any analysis of U.S. actions toward Ukraine is incomplete.

(Zionism, which is the official ideology of Israel, does not separate religion and state. Neither does the Russian Orthodox Church. Neither does the Trump Administration.)

Since Russia, Iran, China (who abstained), and North Korea are pariahs for their UN behavior, then the United States and Israel should always be condemned too when they engage in like-minded behavior. But that's not the way it works, is it?

4. In the West, whiteness is equivalent to Christianity (which includes Judaism).

The West, particularly the United States, defines itself as a "Judeo-Christian" civilization.

So Zelenskyy's treatment by Trump/Vance can be understood in both racial and sectarian terms. His Jewish identity is discounted and considered non-existent. He is accused of being a Nazi by those excusing or supporting actual Nazis.

Russia makes the argument that Ukraine itself is not an independent people with the right to choose how they worship.

In fact, much like many Christian and Jewish Zionists (like the newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to Israel) who believe that Palestinians "do not exist", Russia says Ukrainians do not exist; they are neither Christians nor an independent country with the rights of statehood.

And (according to this argument) Ukrainians are not real (white) people that truly own their land. So the conflict in Ukraine is an internal matter, at best a civil war, not an invasion of an autonomous European, Christian country.

This is the same argument which worked to deflect attention away from Russia's conduct in Chechnya.

Even though the people there looked "white" they were majority Muslim and therefore were not afforded the same level of human value by the West. They could be readily smeared as terrorists, thus invoking the pretext of fear that justified Russian atrocities.

Thus, Chechen aspirations for independence from Russia were not recognized by the West. And after W. Bush "looked into Putin's soul", he sided with him just like Trump is doing.

Putin makes the same “racialized” sectarian arguments against Ukraine but they haven't been as effective because the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is aligned with Western Christianity and it’s in Europe's interest that Ukraine remain a buffer state for the Western World.

Zelenskyy in that White House meeting was essentially treated as “non-Western, non-Christian” (i.e. non-white) heads of state have been treated for decades, especially African leaders.

For example, both the British and French have made the argument that Africans and Asians who were exploited and abused by European colonialism should be "grateful" to them and not resist exploitive schemes which continue to pillage many Global South countries today.

Zelenskyy was urged to be grateful and say “thank you” for the terms of a deal that meant being used and exploited in similar ways.

African nations are used as throwaway territories by Western and Eastern powers and resource rich mines to plunder. The people don't matter.

Trump's "minerals deal" was another way to reduce Ukraine to just another plot of land to be divvied up between two larger, aligned powers, Africa-style, where the people don't matter either.

"White" "Christian" nations aren't usually treated this way, especially publicly. The Vance faction of Catholicism believes only pre-Vatican II Catholics are real Christians belonging to a legitimate church. And if you're not (a real) Christian how can you truly be European?

(Read Timothy Synder on the influence of racism in Russian thought concerning Ukraine. Remember, "race" was made up by European, magisterial "Christian" powers. So racial categories are not just social constructs. They are also "church constructs": religious castes that are not dependent upon physical characteristics or actual belief.)

5. What that Trump/Vance tantrum revealed is they are not string pullers...they are sectarian puppets; “suppets”.

And people behind those strings are not just anti-democratic, authoritarian, greedy, and cruel. They are also very, very sectarian.

If all politics are local then, since most localities have places of worship, it would be a mistake to ignore the role (false) religion is playing in this geopolitical controversy over Ukraine.

Ready for Some Action?

Watchlight Media — Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:03:27 GMT

We're coming together to organize and plan. Join us.

Bring your slingshots. We have extra too:

https://tinyurl.com/myslingshot

Thanks for reading The Lantern! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Shields Can Be Offensive: Why Missouri SJR39 Does Not Protect Religious Liberty

Watchlight Media — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 15:10:56 GMT

From the Archive

Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 39, if approved by Missouri voters, would amend the state constitution. And that’s about all anyone on “both” sides would agree on.

After an epic 39 hour Democratic filibuster in the Missouri Senate, and a contentious vote held by way of a rare (but increasingly common) procedural maneuver by the Republican majority, the two sides of the issue seem to be firmly cast.

On one side are those concerned about enshrining discrimination against a particular group within the state constitution.

On the other are those concerned about protecting the freedom of conscience of those with a moral objection to participating in events and ceremonies which affirm or celebrate same sex couples. It is a “civil rights” vs “religious liberty” frame.

Proponents often describe SJR39 as a “narrowly crafted” piece of legislation which addresses “targeted” industries avoiding broad exemptions which have entangled other states. Supporters also point out that same-sex marriage is not prohibited by this resolution. Only the ability to sue or sanction those artisans, bakers and photographers objecting to same sex marriage is curtailed.

Those promoting SJR39 have described this Constitutional change as a “shield not a sword”. This symbolizes the stated goal to protect rights rather than to attack the rights of a particular group.

There are problems with framing the conflict over SJR39 as civil rights vs religious liberty because it assumes that each side embodies the complete principles of its label.

On the religious liberty side this is certainly not the case.

One can disagree with same-sex marriage, advocate for religious liberty and oppose SJR39. The argument about the merit or lack of merit in this proposal is more dimensional than a “religious liberty” vs “civil rights” frame would suggest. That’s a false dichotomy.

SJR39 is problematic from a number of perspectives but its chief flaws are related to the core claim that it is merely a protective measure. While this is the stated intention of the sponsors and supporters of SJR39 it will not, in fact, be the outcome of this measure being added to Missouri’s Bill of Rights.

Also, while this amendment appears to be a reaction to current events, SJR39 is the latest attempt to further redefine religious liberty and to undermine other constitutional provisions which are deemed too restrictive of religious institutions’ free exercise prerogatives.

In fact, most of the provisions in SJR39 protect and benefit religious institutions and their employees, leaders, clergy, facilities and auxiliaries along with their ability to continue receiving state aid.

SJR39, in its origins, its journey through the legislative process, its potential affirmation by an electoral majority and its inherent character, is very troubling and problematic.

The U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, within the first amendment and applied to the states through the 14th amendment, creates a balance between establishment of religion and free exercise of religion. That balance, at the state level, is upended by SJR39.

Also various provisions within the Missouri Constitution prohibiting the funding of any religious interests by the state are further undermined in SJR39 by assuming such funding is a foregone conclusion.

If successfully passed and upheld by the courts, SJR39 will destabilize this constitutional balance in favor of establishment of religion. Here are few specifics to consider:

Constitutions and bills of right, by nature, are not “narrow”. They are the standard by which all other laws are judged. Therefore they form the core principles of jurisprudence within the state. Constitutional provisions can be interpreted very broadly on the basis of principles which may not be found in the “letter” of the text. If the proponents of the SJR39 wanted a limited provision, they would have filed a state statute not sought a Constitutional amendment to the Missouri Bill of Rights.
SJR39 codifies an explicit religious view within the state constitution. In essence it establishes religion. This contradicts other provisions which prohibit establishment of a particular religious view. Using a vote of the people to establish a particular religious viewpoint turns the Protestant refrain of “in matters of conscience the majority has no power” on its head. The process to pass SJR39 (breaking the filibuster, “get out the vote” efforts, a successful passage) would establish that in matters of conscience an electoral majority has all power.
SJR39 elevates the institutional discretion of certain churches, certain religious groups and certain individuals above the prerogatives of civil society and the state in commercial matters. However, there is no guarantee that this would remain limited to the marriage marketplace. In other areas, the state could be compelled to fund church social service ministries (as a example) with taxpayer funds even in the event that a majority of taxpayers voted to enact or affirm policies that a church with certain Constitutional protections opposed while other state funded social service agencies were compelled to comply. If the issue is a matter of conscience, each church institution supporting this measure should consider not accepting any taxpayer funds to carry out its mission.
This amendment would establish a right retained exclusively by certain religious institutions, religious leaders and religious individuals that is enforced by the state. An atheists, for example, who owns a bakery and objects to participating in a same-sex ceremony would have no protections simply because their motive was not “a sincerely held religious belief”. Also, the state would be enforcing these provisions through court precedent, if SJR39 is upheld and affirmed by Missouri Supreme Court. This protects one religious perspective solely on the basis of whether or not it can achieve a plurality of votes.
SJR39 creates a new, narrowly defined protected class which is immune from the same legal jeopardy to which non-religious institutions and individuals are subject. In addition there is no equivalent privilege or protection available to religious institutions or individuals who agree with same sex marriage in any area of the Bill of Rights.
It contradicts, in spirit, Article I Section 6 and Article I Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution. The state would be “compelled” to give preference to institutions or individuals with a particular religious viewpoint on the basis of that religious viewpoint and not as an objective right applicable to anyone regardless of belief.

True religious liberty advocacy is concerned as much about the establishment of religion as it is with the free exercise of religion. The risks of establishment are far broader than Congress passing a law mandating everyone to support a specific church.

Efforts at the local and state level to codify in statute or constitution the religious beliefs of a legislative or electoral majority are misguided and dangerous.

We do not have a civil religion, Plato not withstanding.

SJR39 is not harmless, it is not narrow nor is it limited. It expands free exercise at the expense of establishing the hallmarks of a specific religious creed and contradicting universal safeguards for conscience under the guise of addressing a topical emergency.

There should be a healthy tension between church and state not broad legal accommodations by the state in deference to religious economic and theological interests. No religion should be dependent upon legislation, courts and constitutional amendments to wield influence.

SJR39 may indeed be “a shield and not a sword” but shields can be offensive too.

In medieval times, a soldier might carry a type of shield called a buckler. It was small and generally used to deflect blows from a mace or sword. But it was not only used for defense.

This shield could be used as an offensive weapon. It could be used as an iron fist, to pummel foes.

This shield could be used as an offensive weapon. It could be used as an iron fist, to pummel foes. And it could be used as a binder to pin down a foe’s sword or to wrap up an opponent’s arms.

There are times when religious liberty and freedom of conscience must be protected.

But it should be remembered that the shield which a Christian wields is made of faith not statecraft.

Thanks for reading The Lantern! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share The Lantern

Manasseh: An Apt Comparison?

Watchlight Media — Thu, 06 Feb 2025 15:01:50 GMT

Manasseh, the wicked king of Judah, in power and then in prison.

From 2016:

In conservative Evangelical and Seventh-day Adventist circles it is common to hear President Trump compared to either King David of Israel or the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. The implication being that a flawed man can be given vast responsibilities as a part of God’s plan to protect his people or advance His will.

It’s often a means to “spiritualize” away the clear contradiction between Godly standards of character and Mr. Trump’s brazen disregard for such standards. These comparisons are not so much a defense of Mr. Trump as they are a defense of rationalizing their willingness to compromise with evil.

The comparisons however are not apt even if taken at face value.

David was a devout servant of God. He was shepherd, a poet, musician, planner, warrior and leader before he reigned in Israel. David spent 20 years on the run from the mad king Saul. He could have led a successful rebellion against this tyrant but did not want to split the kingdom into civil war. So he chose to suffer instead.

David had at least two opportunities to kill Saul but respected God’s will enough to trust Him to handle the anointed king. When Saul was killed on the field of battle with the Philistines, though he was unjust and had become cruel, David wept over the man he once knew.

After having an affair with Bathsheba, David arranged for her husband to die on the battlefield. It took him a year and a confrontation with the prophet Nathan to bring him to full repentance.

Repentance is acknowledging specific, personal sin, feeling sorrow for sin and asking God for forgiveness and the power to overcome that sin.

Mr. Trump said he has never asked God for forgiveness.

David felt genuine sorrow for his sin and accepted the consequences of his decisions. Those consequences were dire and bleak, including strife in his family, the rape of his daughter, the death of three sons and being ousted from the throne. The sword never left his house.

And yet, when reading his Psalms of lament, it’s clear he is sorry for his sin not simply the consequences of his sin. Psalms 51 is a vulnerable, broken and sincere confession of his need and God’s mercy.

There is nothing in Mr. Trump’s background which suggests he feels any need of God. And comparing the fruits of David’s life and Mr. Trump’s life shows very different harvests, roots and seeds.

God said that David was “a man after His own heart.” This refers to when David was close to Him. Thus God did not excuse David’s shortcomings, He sought to correct them. And though David repented sincerely, his decisions still had a lasting impact upon his family, his nation and his ability to serve.

David wanted to build a temple for the Lord. He raised copious amounts of money and developed extensive plans. God accepted these offerings and honored his sacrifices and devotion. But David was not allowed to build the temple because he was “man of war” who spilled much blood.

The Lord does not judge us based on one or two incidences whether good or evil but assesses by the trend of our lives. David’s life contained some very serious mistakes but the overall trend of his life showed a man who loved mercy, did justice and walked humbly with God.

What is the trend of Mr. Trump’s life? Does he love mercy, do justice and walk humbly?

King Nebuchadnezzar was a brilliant strategist, engineer, planner, administrator, warrior and king. His kingdom, in terms of technology and governance, was far advanced of the Greeks and Romans. He built one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon so his favorite wife wouldn’t be so homesick.

The kingdom Nebuchadnezzar was to inherit he helped to build through military service and administrative responsibility. When he ascended to the throne the kingdom expanded its reach and grew more powerful and sophisticated.

Yet Nebuchadnezzar was not a servant of God but an unwitting instrument that He used to punish Judah for its blatant disregard of its covenant with the Lord. Nebuchadnezzar eventually did become a servant of the Most High but only after his pride caused him to be humbled in the dust after boasting about his accomplishments. His ordeal developed in him a sense of humility which helped him understand himself in relation to the Creator.

But his initial relationship with God’s people was as a punishment not a reward.

This comparison is a much subtler denial of responsibility by Christians because Nebuchadnezzar was a foreign king who was not “of” the people of God and therefore not subject to the same standards, in their reckoning.

Mr. Trump is characterized as an “outsider” not a *real* conservative. So Christian conservatives are happy to take what he gives them without being responsible for his un-Christian behavior and unethical decisions. But Trump is a wholesale product of the conservative movement, a fruit of its moral and ethical hypocrisy. There is nothing foreign about him.

It is inappropriate to liken a duly, democratically elected president of a republic to a divinely appointed king of a theocracy or the king of a foreign, pagan state. The President of the United States is not a king. The citizens of United States are not a covenant people living under a theocracy. Church and state are not combined here.

But if we must compare Mr. Trump to Biblical kings to draw relevant lessons about this modern moment, there is one who provides a closer match:

Manasseh.

He never should have been born. His father Hezekiah was set to die but after pleading with God to extend his life was granted an additional 15 years. Manasseh was born during this time.

His reign lasted 55 years and it was an unmitigated disaster.

He re-established the worship of other gods including Baal and, worse of all, Molech who demanded child sacrifices. Manasseh sacrificed one of his own children, causing him to “pass through the fire.”

He did witchcraft and spoke with “familiar spirits” and wizards. He set up alters to pagan gods in the temple in Jerusalem. Rather than following in the footsteps of his immediate predecessor he followed in the way of Ahab, a wicked and feckless king from Israel’s distant past.

Manasseh oppressed the innocent. Anyone who opposed him and his associates in authority were persecuted. He murdered true prophets and ministers. He wanted to “silence every voice of disapproval.”

A very significant aspect of his reign is described in 2 Kings 21:9, which reveals he was not without popular support.

“But they (Judah) hearkened not: and Manasseh *seduced* them to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel.”

Seduced. Not subjugated. Not forced. These chosen people were charmed, flattered and bribed into doing worse things than the people they replaced in the land. According to some scholars, despite Manasseh’s moral apostasy, Judah did well economically with trade contributing to its prosperity. However, apparently there were great disparities between rich and poor opening up yet another means of coercion.

Dissenters were persecuted but supporters were rewarded.

His corruption was so acute that the Scriptures say Manasseh “hath done wickedly above all…which were before him.”

The worst king ever. (And based on the record of most kings of Israel and Judah, that’s a hard title to earn.)

Yet Manasseh comes to a hopeful end. After being captured and brought to Babylon as a prisoner, Manasseh repents from his evil ways and prayed to God to be returned to Judah’s throne.

He promised to reform and when he was restored to his place, kept his promise. He tore down the idols, he stopped sacrificing children, he ceased persecuting dissenters, he reestablished some justice and equity.

But his story and the story of his nation does not end there. Though Manasseh repented this did not change the consequences of his wicked influence.

He turned many from the right path and they never returned to it. Manasseh did such permanent damage to the civic and spiritual life of the nation that his influence is directly responsible for the downfall of Judah which resulted in its subjugation to Babylon and to Nebuchadnezzar.

He weakened the nation morally, ethically and civically to such a degree that even subsequent reformers like Josiah, his grandson, were only able to delay Judah’s ultimate downfall, not avoid it altogether.

And though he was personally able to turn around, the nation that followed him into the darkness refused to turn. This was not because of a supernatural curse. Leadership sanctioned wrongdoing, corruption, immorality and violence for so long that most people came to prefer power and license more than justice and righteousness.

“Attitude reflects leadership.”

Trump is no king, much less a David or Nebuchadnezzar.

If there is any antecedent in the Bible among the kings of Israel and Judah, Manasseh comes closest as an applicable cautionary history.

Maybe there will be personal redemption for Mr. Trump. To be redeemed requires the humility to admit one’s wrongdoing, corrupting influence and abject need of saving.

The question for this nation, of course, is even more pertinent:

Has Mr. Trump’s seduction of Christian and religious conservatives and their embrace of every form of moral compromise pushed America beyond the point of no return?

Thanks for reading The Lantern! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share The Lantern

A Compromised Protest: Tales of W.A.S.P.

Watchlight Media — Wed, 05 Feb 2025 16:02:38 GMT

This is a political tale of insects and ideas.

Wasps are strange, fascinating insects. We think of them far less than bees. They have a reputation for being aggressive, even mean.

And like all of nature, important lessons can be drawn from the havoc they experience and the havoc they cause in the natural world. There are many applications for these lessons but i will only develop one consistent thread. You can weave the others.

When European paper wasps (Polistes dominulus) are infected by a parasite called Xenos vesparum their nature changes. This fly larva borrows into the wasp’s abdomen and feeds on its blood. The parasite grows stronger while the wasp weakens in body and behavior. It goes from being social to more solitary.

It is guided by an internal influence to seek out other infected wasps so the parasites can mate and reproduce. The wasp hosts infected by males die. But the female parasites live on in their hosts and adopt the behavior and habits of wasp queens, though they can not reproduce like true queens.

They do spread more parasites among various colonies infecting unsuspecting wasps and continuing a strange and tragic cycle. But wasps aren’t always victims of foreign influence. Sometimes they use parasitic means to reproduce, shelter and protect their own.

The Glyptoapanteles variety of wasps hunt caterpillars, catch and inject them with up to 80 eggs. As the larvae develop, the doomed caterpillar goes about its normal routine. Until one day the larvae within release chemicals paralyzing the host bursting from the caterpillar body. Most leave but not all as a few stay inside.

Those that exited have used their shed exoskeletons to close the wound their “egress” caused. Parasites inside the caterpillar use other chemicals to control their host, forcing it to serve as nurse and protector of the still developing larval brood.

It is so enthralled that it does not eat. It spins protective silk over the cocoons of its former invaders. And it aggressively protects the wasp brood with forceful swings of its head.

As the larval wasps complete their development cycle, emerge from their cocoons and fly away, the caterpillar dies from starvation. It has served its purpose.

Our third and final WASPs are the white, Anglo Saxon Protestants who once dominated all levels of American society. The “w” originally meant “wealthy” the redundancy of our current interpretation is both poetic and fitting.

For our purposes the wealth will be rhetorically “understood” like “you” in the one word command to “go!”

Protestantism, as an ideal, can by summed up in the succinct statement “a church without a pope, a state without a king.” This saying goes to the heart of principles embodied most succinctly by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Freedom from state sponsored coercion and repression of the conscience by the state and politically powerful church leads to all the liberties necessary for a true republic. You can not have freedom of speech, press, assembly and due process without freedom of conscience. And without these, you can not have participatory democracy.

And so Protestantism and (small “r”) republicanism are the foundation of American ideals and the secret to its power. But i would be remiss not to mention the two distinctive types of Protestantism: “Magisterial” and “Radical”.

Magisterial Protestantism tends to imitate Catholicism in important ways and came to defined itself more as a political counterweight than a spiritual revival of a primitive godliness.

Over time many of what we know today as “mainline” Protestants (Anglicans/Episcopalians, Presbyterians) abandoned the broad principles of Protestantism after establishing their own independence.

While desiring political and spiritual autonomy from Rome, these magisterial protestants often ruled their adherents and subjects like the Catholic magisterium over the states they controlled. People were free to be Protestants as long as they were the particular Protestants endorsed by the state.

So Radical Protestants took the Reformation a bit further and applied the same standards of freedom of worship, conscience and political conviction to themselves and to any government they lived under. The Anabaptist and the ideas of Roger Williams illustrate this well.

It is the spirit of these “radical” ideals which led the framers of the U.S. Constitution to avoid many pitfalls of the Vatican, the Anglicans and the respective governments they influenced.

But for all the good those white, Anglo Saxon Protestants who crafted and ratified the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights established, they tolerated a parasite in their midst.

Race.

It began specifically with slavery on the basis of “race”. But this parasitic ideal would morph, adapt and grow over time. So much so that race became a wedge point and a platform for more forms of control without requiring explicit, widespread chattel slavery.

The WASPs in that Continental Congress understood that compromising on slavery was a gamble that would threaten to tear this new republic apart. But the expediency of the moment led them to violate their consciences and enshrine a viral idea within the foundation of this nation.

That idea is explicitly expressed as belief that the only human race is “white”, racial whiteness represents innocence and all others were different, inferior, guilty and soiled “races”.

The more subtle idea is that it is within the power of one person to determine another person’s relation to God and the state without their consent or with their coerced consent.

And this superiority represented the will of God. Therefore they have divine permission to be cruel, to violate the will and conscience of these “others”, to use them for pleasure and to build wealth. To decide for them who to worship, how and when. To interpret the Bible “for” them and make no space for their political voices.

There is a tragic underpinning to the sentiments of this famous declaration, which in part said,

“for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

The tragedy is their fortunes were wrung from the sweat of other unwilling men’s labor.

Their sacred honor was compromised by a hypocrisy which called people, made in the same image of God as they, partial persons and fair game.

The Divine Providence they invoked for protection was grieved by their rejection of His compassion.

This magisterial ideal was not excised by the 14th and 15th amendments, the Emancipation Proclamation nor the Civil War. It infected the cultural, civic, legal, economic and religious life of the U.S.

And the WASPs were the most rabid carriers of these corrupting principles.

Their Protestantism was modified and defined by their wealth and “race”. Therefore, just as Protestantism in the old world became corrupted by failing to fully brake from magisterial structures and ideas, the Protestantism in the new world is infested with parasitic ideas related to race and love of money.

Ironically both old and new corruptions have led to the same, authoritarian outcomes in Europe and America.

As long as a caste system is cultivated which coerces conscience, restricts economic and social mobility, uses the judiciary to exploit people and impose particular religious idea arbitrarily, true Protestantism and any Constitutional principle based on it will be compromised.

No wonder magisterial influences are on the ascendancy everywhere in these United States.

Those WASPs assumed what they spread as manifest destiny was Christian virtue and Protestant liberty. But their highest aspirations were corrupted by parasites; racism and love of money.

These influences bore deeply into all our political, cultural and religious institutions, distorting them over time. WASPs are husks of their former influence. They served their purpose.

What has emerged out of them is every bit as magisterial, caste based, coercive, arbitrary and wealth obsessed as anything in the old world. And these parasitic ideas have changed American Radical Protestantism into American Conservative Evangelicalism.

And these Evangelicals point back to an America originally compromised by the WASPs they so resent in the present and long for the power over others they welded.

They will aggressively defend this nostalgia against anyone who attacks these anti-Christian notions of greatness. They are inspired by unseen influences they don’t really understand.

But they don’t bother to pretend to be Protestants anymore.

Where are the (true) Protestants today?

Thanks for reading The Lantern! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share The Lantern