Domino's Founder plans Catholic town

Why stop with birth control? Monaghan should reinstate Lucius III's oft-neglected papal bull, the Ad abolendam, and declare anyone who holds unorthodox beliefs (or harbors the same) unfit for public office, the ownership of property, or any other legal rights.

Or the Ad abolendam could be interpreted (as it was later in history) that a more appropriate punishment for an unrepentant heretic would be death by fire. Welcome to Catholicton! Look Romanish or it's off to the rack with ye! Jesus loves You!

Two days ago I was watching CNN and I hear of a guy trying to do something of the kind. His plan is to move a lot of Christians to South Carolina in order to create a state where Christian principles are the currency of the day. The website is www.christianexodus.org

I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

I heard about this on XM satellite radio and didn't catch the entire story, but I did go online and check out the website for the town: www.avemaria.com/. The site and the plans for the town and university look great!

My two cents on the matter for anyone who objects or finds this idea objectionable is: YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE THERE. The people who decide to live there will mainly be those who want to fully embrace a Catholic lifestyle in all aspects of their community. I really don't see the problem with it at all. If a wealthy non-Catholic wants to do the same then more power to them. The question is to those who would dissent and still call themselves Christian are:
1) Do you want or need X rated channels available for purchase on your cable list?
2) Do you value the sacred union between a man and a woman that is meant for marraige ALONE?
3) Are pornographic magazines available for purchase necessary?

No doubt, those who have their arms cocked and ready to throw stones will be those who are of a more liberal slant. There will be many Christians in this camp as well. It will be an interesting experiment to watch though as the town and university is built. I pray for Mr. Monaghan's success. Domino's anyone??
Peace,
Matthew

Man Kaff

Instead of saying something like...hey someone with bucks actually trying to live the Christian life...you spew more venom. I know you can do better than that.

You want to lecture people on their sarcasm yet reserve the right to skewer others on that spear whenever you wish. hmmmmm....like I have said...I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I think you are just here to flame.

In tough Love

when we were one

I think it is fortunate that christianexodus.org is in such a dramatic minority. Their strategy, though well-intentioned, would certainly lead to bloodshed if enough people followed it.

Nor is this strategy even remotely Biblical. Unless I missed the epistle where Paul or Peter or John said to Christians, “things are tough in your communities. You battle heresy daily, and the Roman rulers are corrupt. That’s why we want all of you to move to Ephesus, unite, and overthrow Roman rulership and establish a conclave, from which you eventually might send out a missionary or two.”

Rather, Jesus prayed, “I do not ask You to take them out of the world […] They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. […] As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.” (John 17:15-18) We are sent into the world the world but we are not of the world or taken out of the world. Setting up a Christians-only club complete with its own government is “of the world” because it capitalizes on the worldly means of governance, but it is only one nudge from “out of the world” since it attempts to insulate and separate itself completely.

It's a good thing that Jesus didn’t think like the Christian Exodus folks or he never would have descended from heaven to save us.

Then again, maybe the Christian Exodus folks don't think like the Christian Exodus folks either...their Chairman & President, like the rest of the board of directors who staunchly advocate relocation into South Carolina, all live in ... Texas. ??!

I used to think I could be sufficiently insulated from the culture simply by turning off the TV. While that has gone a long long way, the contraceptive mentality which glorifies personal gratification over generosity towards children still infects the grocery store magazine racks, the public transportation ads, the lyrics of modern church songs, and the structure of church "community" events, and the catholic school system. Catholic town sounds more and more appealing.

I used to think that silently retreating into a properly Christian community violated Our Lord's commission to witness faithfully to the Gospel. Thanks to the armies of liberal lawyers intent on harrassing this effort, it sounds like the citizens of Ave Maria will have plenty of opportunity to proclaim the good news to unbelievers.

My only concern about founding a city on "Catholic Values" is that we may forget the most important one - to treat those without "Catholic Values" with the dignity, respect, and love Our Lord gives to everyone. Our Lord came to us while we were sinners. When we sin mortally, he invites us to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If we refuse his invitation, he continues to invite and love us even while he punishes us.

In my personal crusade to enforce the right rules in my own areas, I know I often fail to treat people with the respect and care they deserve. I need to improve in this area. Sometimes I wonder if retreating to a "better" environment would make me worse in this area.

This Catholic town sounds like a paradise on earth.

Kaffinator, for two millenia people in religious orders have done this very thing, and now if the laity and families would like to live together in a Catholic community THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT.

Besides, the assumption that they are totally removing themselves from the world is false. I live with my family in a suburb, and my kids have more frequent flier miles than most people I know. They have traveled to four continents and done volunteer work all over. I NEVER EVEN SEE ANY OF NEIGHBORS, yet I have a job, travel, use the internet, etc.

(BTW, as an aside, some people live in gated communities; some of my wealthy friends (far wealthier than I am) never even see the hoi-polloi. Their children only see "their own kind." Should they be sued?

But my real argument is the one I cited first. What if everyone followed your dictatorship about how we must live? We would certainly have no St. Therese, as the Little Flower would be prohibited from living in an enclosed Catholic community!

Live and let live! You don't have to like it, but you have no right to dictate how others must live.

Aw, c’mon WWWO, you know if I wasn’t here you wouldn’t be having any fun.

Hi Matthew, since I’ve sort of set myself up on the dissent side, I’ll answer your questions.

1) Personally, no. In fact my family doesn’t even pay for cable even though our TV reception, to put it mildly, sucks rocks.

2) Absolutely.

3) I don’t understand the question…are pornographic magazines necessary or not for what purpose?

But, so what? I figure all believers would pretty much have to answer the same. But none of these questions address the constitutional or theological issues that the Ave Maria idea raises. So, if you like, take a crack at answering MY questions.

Will the government of Ave Maria will grant its citizens the same federally guaranteed constitutional rights that all other municipalities must grant? Is it wrong for fellow Americans to consider this question, seeing as how American military servicemen and guardsmen will defend and protect Ave Maria at home and abroad; that American courts will supply legal justice, that American laws will protect its residents, that American roads will convey the necessities of living, etc?

As for the theological issues, I just think it’s a poor witness for Christians to be seen beating a hasty retreat from the world, and raising the walls nice and high as a defense. When Jesus said the “gates of Hell shall not prevail”, who did he imagine was attacking, and who was defending?

Kaff,
I agree with your 2nd post. Catholic town sounds like a self serving entity, and does not remind me of Christ's ministry at all.

What about protecting our children? I don't live in a "community" but I would sure welcome one. I have lived in "the world" and know the damage it did to me. I think all of us are being dishonest if we say it hasn't affected us. To know that those families around you share your values and beliefs is hardly something worth condemning or even mocking.

When Jesus said the "gates of hell shall not prevail" he was specifically talking about the Catholic Church...2000+ years and still kicking strong ;-)...not the individual Christian family. Least we forget, the early Church DID live in community:

Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common...there was not a needy person among them... - Acts 4:32, 34

In Christ,
Joe

Man

Some awesome thoughts above... I agree with some of each poster incl Kaff!...

But lets see the rubber meet the road. How many of us, if we had a job there and could afford the 500k house and cost of living would 1) visit 2) live there 1 year 3) move permanently?

I would yes yes maybe (too hot in summer)

In Love

when we were one

Hi Joe,

Time for confession. My first post was just intended to get things interesting. I’m sorry Joe if you took entirely warranted offense at it. I should probably seek better ways to stimulate conversation.

Also I have three young children and I can totally see the appeal of a place where you could basically trust that your kids wouldn’t be constantly exposed to smut. And I am not convinced of the constitutional argument that naked ladies are the kind of speech that the framers intended to permit.

My point about the gates of hell was intended to illustrate that the Church (however we see scripture defining it, as the Rome-centered hierarchy or the universal community of Christian believers) is not primarily a defensive organism but one that enters into an unredeemed world in spiritual battle and snatches the lost out of the fire. Dude, we are on offence and Satan is running scared.

I’m glad you mentioned the early communities of Acts. As often as it comes up in my circles believe me I am in no danger of forgetting about it. Our youth group is even named 2:42. What you may have forgotten is that the church of Acts 2-6 is nestled in Jerusalem in the midst of unbelieving Jews and occupying Romans, who were being converted daily. How many people do you suppose will be “converted” in Monaghan’s Ave Maria?

Anon, whoever you are, you are totally right that people have the right to choose how they live. But is that right, as the founding fathers claimed, inalienable (i.e. not-give-uppable)? If I moved into the Ave Maria that Monaghan envisions, I would be voluntarily giving up my right to choose how I live and putting it in the hands of whoever owns the property. That idea should make us uncomfortable. How would you feel about gated communities that allowed its residents to agree to, and then enforced, any of the following rules:

* People who are not part of the majority religion cannot own property.
* Polygamous unions are required in all households.
* Black people are permitted to live in the community but not to have any job making more than $8.75/hr.
* All marriages are assigned by betrothal under the direction of the religious leader.

Would that be OK? If not, what right do you have to tell others how to live?

Blessings to you all, Kaff

While I might use different language to describe Kaffinator's concerns, I think he does raise a legitimate point.

For example, I would love to live a town where there was no supply of contraceptives and porn because there was no demand for them. I would love to live in a diocese that made first reconciliation part of the preparation for first communion instead of trying to find a way to obey the requirements of the Catechism while still submitting to the authority of the bishop.

But how will a Catholic town deal with people who do not wish to abide by a Catholic lifestyle? If we ignore or appease them, the Catholic town quickly becomes a regular town. If we kick them out or imprison them we are betraying the life of love we are called to lead (I think this is the point Kaff was trying to make). If we pass and enforce local laws governing what is visible in the public sphere, are the local laws subjcect to higher judicial authorities outside the public sphere. More importantly, do we believe in free speech for Catholics only or do we also believe in free speech for people who are trying to tear down the Church.

While opponents of Christianity and Catholicism often cite freedom of speech only when it suits their purposes, do we as Christians and Catholics do the same and bang the free speech drum only when it suits ours? Over the past twenty years Christianity has waned in power while its opponents have gained in power. Not so coincidentally, Christians are supporting free speech much more about free speech than they used to while the opponents of Christianity oppose free speech much more than they used to.

I don't think any government, Christian, Catholic, or secular has done a good job of respecting the rights of those whose values differ significantly from the general populace.

Human history suggests that the only way to build a unified community is to drive away or coerce into submission those who resist.

For this Catholic town to succeed, it would have to govern in a fashion radically different from previous governments and organizations. The obvious and historical solutions of legislation and disciplinary measures simply won't do. And neither will the attitude of "the Church has acted this way for 2000 years so don't change anything" as it is doctrine not pastoral procedures which are procteted by the seal of infallibility.

For an example of a radically different way of leading an organization, I would like us to consider the reign of our beloved Pope John Paul II. His reign is contained an unprecedented low in the number of excommunications, an unprecedented high in encyclicals, an unprecedented high in public apologies for past misdeeds, an unprecedented high in reaching out to the estranged, an unprecedented high in unifying dialogue with Protestant, Orthodox, and Jewish leaders, an unprecedented low in the use of disciplinary authority, an unprecedented high in mutual good will with the teen-agers and young adults that most pious people dismiss as "immoral and rude", but also an unprecedented high in the problem of treacherous bishops who undermine the Catholic faith retaining their positions of influence.

And here is the rub, it seems as if John Paul II dealth with disorders within his Church by exhortation, education, and inviation. In the short term, this turned the Church into a breeding ground for all sorts of heresies and liturgical abuses. This caused and continues to cause pain. And yet, somehow it seems that things are turning around because of not despite the Pope's new way of dealing with dissidents.

Will the leaders of the new Catholic town have the courage to try something equally bold and innovative even if the short term consequences appear totaly disastrous? If not, don't expect much. If so, perhaps there is not really a need for a Catholic town...

BR

Two great posts from you, I've really enjoyed your input on this topic. I didn't know the noted facts about JP the Great. I think it interesting that Benedict has reopened the questions re: sspx Lefebvre movement in light of your thoughts on decreased excommunications.

In Love

when we were one

WWWO,

I remember reading somewhere (I wish I could remember) that Augustine had mediations on how to deal with those who violate moral laws. He suggested that using ecclesial or secular force, while sometimes necessary, can often prove inneffective or counterproductive.

Few of us have a problem with locking up people up for 25 years for armed robbery. Most of us have a problem with outlawing gossip. But the bible condemns both activities. Alcohol was one of those grey areas where making it illegal seemed like a good idea but it turned out making criminals very rich.

I wish I could remember what criteria Augustine used to suggest what course of action to take.

I'm beginning to wonder if making laws has little value when trying to raise the level of behavior of the general populace and proves more useful when trying to sustain or preserve the level of behavior in the general populace.

For example, 30 years ago, anti-abortion laws would have made a huge difference in maintaining our attitudes towards life. Now, I think that our attitudes need to change first before the laws are going to have any benefit.

60 years ago, there was a smaller demand for contraceptives and keeping them illegal would have made a big difference. Now, the demand is huge and people will need to change first.

I suspect the Roman Catholic Church thinks this way as well. Popes Paul VI, and John Paul II have always maintained the Church teachings against contraception and invited the faithful and the clergy to uphold the constant teachings. They have, however, stopped short of using disciplinary measures against those who reject the teachings. I think this suggests wisdom in our Popes rather than negligence.

I am curious how the law against porn, contraceptives, and abortion will play out in the new catholic town. Will they show the same wisdom our Popes have shown and seek an alternative to using punitive measures to deal with those who break the Law?

Augustine knew of this need. Our Lord himself dealt with our transgressions by sacrificing himself on the cross. How will the governing bodies in Ave Maria deal with those who transgress against the Law?