NAPOLEON: UNSUNG HERO OF SECULARISM

I saw an episode of 'The Secret Files of the Inquisition' on TV the other day. I was surprised to learn that Napoleon had a big part in ending the inquisition. Wonder who's been downplaying that in our history class here in America. The way Napoleon has always been portrayed is that of the bad guy, we know of his defeat at Waterloo and that he was short and his hand always tucked in his vest and that's about it. Who knew he had so much to do with stripping the Vatican of its earthly powers. I have a new found respect for the man. Vive le Napoleon! Upon further research I found the establishment of modern Italy quite facinating. I didn't know it came from a three way fight between Autria, France & the Vatican. So below is a short history of Italy's founding.

Napoleon's conquest of Europe and the spread of Enlightenment ideas mark the beginning of the end for the Inquisition and papal rule over Italy. In 1808, Napoleonic forces occupy Madrid and abolish the Spanish Inquisition. The artist Goya depicts for the first time its cruelties, while an insider, Father Juan Antonio Llorente , publishes the first written history of the Inquisition, giving voice to its victims and severely damaging the reputation of the Church. By 1809, Napoleon strips the Pope of his authority and orders the Vatican archive shipped to Paris, hoping to use the contents to undermine and humiliate the Church. With Napoleon's defeat in 1814, the Inquisition makes a resurgence – but its reign will be short-lived, as the rise of the Italian unification movement sees the Pope's temporal kingdom steadily diminished.

The establishment of the Italian Republic and later of the Kingdom of Italy, ruled by Napoleon, began to encourage nationalism in those who lived in the regions. As Napoleon's reign began to fail, other national monarchs he had installed tried to keep their thrones by feeding those nationalistic sentiments, setting the stage for the revolutions to come. Following the defeat of Napoleonic France, the Congress of Vienna (1815) was convened to redraw the European continent. In Italy, the Congress restored the pre-Napoleonic patchwork of independent governments, particularly Austria. But several Italian states began to push for a unified Italian state again, feeding the flames of nationalism that had already been ignited in the populace.

At the time, the struggle for Italian unification was perceived to be waged primarily against the Austrian Empire and the Habsburgs, since they directly controlled the predominantly Italian-speaking northeastern part of present day Italy and were the single most powerful force against unification. The Austrian Empire fought hard against nationalist sentiment, Chancellor von Metternich stated that the word Italy was "purely a geographic expression."

Those in favor of unification also faced opposition from the Holy See, particularly after failed attempts to broker a confederation with the Papal States, which would have given them some measure of autonomy over the region. The pope at the time, Pius IX, feared that giving up power in the region could mean the persecution of Italian Catholics.

One of the most influential revolutionary groups was the Carbonari (coal-burners), a secret organization formed in southern Italy early in the 19th century. Inspired by the principles of the French revolution, its members were mainly drawn from the middle class and intellectuals. After the Congress of Vienna divided the Italian peninsula among the European powers, Carbonari spread.

They were so feared that the reigning authorities passed an ordinance condemning to death anyone who attended a Carbonari meeting. But the society continued to exist and was at the root of many of the outbreaks in Italy from 1820 on. Carbonari condemned Napoleon III to death for failing to unite Italy and almost succeeded in assassinating him for his transgressions. Most leaders of the unification movement were members of this organization.

In 1820, Spaniards revolted successfully over their constitution, which spurred a similar movement in Italy. Inspired by the Spaniards, a regiment in the army of the Kingdom of Two Sicilies revolted, conquering the peninsular part of Two Sicilies. The king, Ferdinand I, agreed to enact a new constitution. But the revolutionaries failed to court popular support and fell to Austrian troops of the Holy Alliance. Ferdinand abolished the constitution and began systematically persecuting revolutionaries.

Around 1830, revolutionary sentiment in favor of a unified Italy began to boil over; a series of insurrections laid the groundwork for the creation of one nation along the Italian peninsula.

During the July Revolution in France, the new French king, Louis-Philippe had promised revolutionaries that he would intervene if Austria tried to interfere with troops. But, fearing he would lose his throne, Louis-Philippe did not intervene in planned uprisings. The Duke of Modena abandoned his "carbonari" friends, and reconquered his duchy with help from the Austrian troops.

At the same time, insurrections arose in the Papal Legations. These successful revolutions, which adopted the tricolore in favor of the Papal flag, quickly spread to cover all the Papal Legations, and their newly installed local governments proclaimed the creation of a united Italian nation.

Louis-Philippe was warned that Austria had no intention to let Italian matters be, and that French intervention would not be tolerated. Louis-Philippe withheld any military help and even arrested Italian patriots living in France. In the spring of 1831, the Austrian army began its march across the Italian peninsula, slowly crushing resistance in each province that had revolted, ending much of the fledging revolutionary movement and arresting its leaders.

In January 1848, revolutionary disturbance began with a civil disobedience strike in Lombardy — they stopped smoking! Denying Austria the tax revenue from it. Shortly after this revolts began on the island of Sicily against King Ferdinand, who conceded and granted Sicily a constitution. Disquiet spread to Naples, where the Neapolitan liberals demanded that they should be granted a constitution too, which they were on 29 January.

In February 1848, Tuscany got one too. The Pope granted a constitution to the Papal states, which was both unexpected and surprising considering the history. Louis-Philippe was forced to flee, and a republic was proclaimed. By the time the revolution in Paris occurred, four states in Italy had constitutions.

Pius IX had been initially seen as something of a reformer, but conflicts with the revolutionaries led him to sour on the idea of constitutional government. In November 1848, following the assassination of his Minister Rossi, Pius IX fled Rome.

In early 1849, elections were held for a Constituent Assembly, which proclaimed a Roman Republic. During a political rally, a young Roman priest, the Abbé Arduini, described the temporal power of the popes as a "historical lie, a political imposture, and a religious immorality."

In the Constitution of the Roman Republic, religious freedom was guaranteed by article 7, the independence of the pope as head of the Catholic Church was guaranteed by article 8 of the "Principi fondamentali", while the death penalty was abolished by article 5.

Before the powers had a chance to respond to the founding of the Roman Republic, Charles Albert, whose army was determined to renew the war with Austria. He was quickly defeated. This time the defeat was final. Charles Albert himself abdicated in favor of his son, Victor Emmanuel II, and all ambitions to unite Italy were for the moment at least, brought to an end.

There remained the Roman and Venetian Republics. The French were determined to restore the Pope. After a two month siege, Rome capitulated and the Pope was restored. Meanwhile, the Austrians besieged Venice, which was forced to surrender. The Austrians also moved to restore order in central Italy, restoring the princes who had been expelled and establishing their control over the Papal Legations. The revolutions were thus completely crushed.

On January 14, 1858, an Italian nationalist Felice Orsini attempted to assassinate Napoleon III, the French Emperor. In a plea written from his prison cell, Orsini appealed to Napoleon III to fulfill his destiny by aiding the forces of Italian nationalism. Napoleon, who had belonged to the Carbonari in his youth, and who saw himself as an advanced thinker, in tune with the ideas of the day, became convinced that it was his destiny to do something for Italy. In the summer of 1858, Cavour met with Napoleon III at Plombières and the two signed a secret agreement, known as "patto di Plombières".

The two agreed to a joint war against Austria. Piedmont would gain the Austrian territories in Italy (Lombardy and Venetia), as well as the Duchies of Parma and Modena, while France would be rewarded with Piedmont's transalpine territories of Savoy and Nice. Central and Southern Italy would remain largely as it was. In order to allow the French to intervene without appearing as the aggressors, Cavour was to provoke the Austrians into aggression by encouraging revolutionary activity in Lombardy.

The war itself was quite short. The Austrian advance into Piedmont was incompetent, and they were unable to secure the Alpine passes before the arrival of the French army, led personally by Napoleon. The French were again victorious. The Austrians withdrew behind the Quadrilateral of fortresses on the borders of Venetia.

There were many reasons Napoleon III sought peace at this point. Fear that a long and bloody campaign would be necessary to conquer Venetia, fear for his position at home, worry at the intervention of German states, and fear of a too-powerful Piedmont-Sardinia led him to look for a way out.

On July 11, he met privately with Franz Joseph, without the knowledge of his Piedmontese allies. Together, the two agreed on the outlines of a settlement to the conflict. The Austrians would retain Venetia, but would cede Lombardy to the French, who would then immediately cede it to Piedmont (the Austrians were unwilling to themselves cede the area to Piedmont). Otherwise, the Italian borders would remain unchanged. In Central Italy, where the authorities had universally been expelled following the outbreak of war, the rulers of Tuscany, Modena, and Parma, who had fled to Austria, would be restored, while Papal control of the Legations would be resumed. Because Napoleon had not fulfilled the terms of his agreement with Piedmont, he would not gain Savoy and Nice.

The Sardinians were outraged at this betrayal by their ally. Cavour demanded that the war be carried on regardless, and resigned when the more realistic Victor Emmanuel determined that acquiescence was the only realistic option. But the Villafranca agreement would prove a dead letter long before it was formalized into the Treaty of Zurich in November. Piedmontese troops occupied the smaller Italian states and the Legations, and the French proved unwilling to pressure them to withdraw and allow the restoration of the old order, while the Austrians no longer had the power to compel it. In December, Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and the Legations were unified into the United Provinces of Central Italy, and, encouraged by the British, were seeking annexation by the Kingdom of Sardinia.

Cavour, who triumphantly returned to power in January 1860, wished to annex the territories, but realized that French acquiescence was necessary. Napoleon III agreed to recognize the Piedmontese annexation in exchange for Savoy and Nice. On March 20, 1860, the annexations occurred. Now the Kingdom of Sardinia encompassed most of Northern and Central Italy.

After waging various successful but hard-fought battles, Garibaldi proclaimed himself dictator of Sicily, in the name of Victor Emmanuel. Garibaldi furiously bombarded Palermo nearly to ruins. With the intervention of a British admiral, an armistice was declared, leading to the Neapolitan troops' departure and surrender of the town to Garibaldi and his much smaller army.

This resounding success demonstrated the weakness of the Neapolitan government. Garibaldi's fame spread and many Italians began to consider him a national hero.
Within seven week Messina surrendered. Having conquered Sicily, Garibaldi proceeded to the mainland, crossing the Straits of Messina with the Neapolitan fleet at hand, Reggio Calabria surrendered, the populace everywhere hailed him and military resistance faded. Soon Cosenza and Eboli, near Salerno surrendered.

Meanwhile Naples had been declared in a state of siege, and the king gathered the 4,000 troops still faithful to him and retreated over the Volturno river. The next day Garibaldi, with a few followers, entered Naples, whose people openly welcomed him.

Garibaldi's irregular bands of about 25,000 men could not drive away the king or take the fortresses of Capua and Gaeta without the help of the Sardinian army. But the Sardinian army could only come by way of the Papal States, which extended across the entire center of the peninsula. Thumbing his nose at the Holy See, Garibaldi announced his intent to proclaim a "Kingdom of Italy" from Rome, the capital city of Pope Pius IX. Seeing this as a threat to the domain of the Catholic Church, Pius threatened excommunication for supporting such an effort. Afraid Garibaldi would attack Rome, Catholics worldwide sent money and volunteers for the Papal Army.

Settling the standoff now rested with Louis Napoleon. If he had let Garibaldi have his way the latter would, no doubt, have quickly ended the temporal sovereignty of the pope and made Rome the capital of Italy. But Napoleon seems to have arranged with Cavour to leave the king of Sardinia free to take possession of Naples, Umbria and the other provinces, provided that Rome and the "patrimony of St. Peter" were left intact.

It was in this situation that a Sardinian force of two army corps marched to the frontier of the Papal States, its object being not Rome but Naples. The Papal troops were quickly defeated. Victor Emmanuel II arrived and took command. There was no longer a papal army to oppose him, and the march southward proceeded unopposed.

Garibaldi willingly handed over his dictatorial power. After greeting Victor Emmanuel in Teano with the title of King of Italy, Garibaldi entered Naples riding beside the king. He then retired to the island of Caprera. The remaining work of unifying the peninsula was left to Victor Emmanuel.

The fall of Gaeta brought the unification movement to the brink of fruition — only Rome and Venetia remained to be added. On February 18, 1861, Victor Emmanuel assembled the deputies of the first Italian parliament that acknowledged his supremacy at Turin, and in their presence assumed the title of King of Italy. In March the parliament declared Rome Capital of Italy.

Mazzini was discontented with the perpetuation of monarchical government, and continued to agitate for a republic. With the motto "Free from the Alps to the Adriatic," the unification movement set its gaze on Rome and Venice. There were obstacles, though. A challenge against the Pope's temporal domain was viewed with great distrust by Catholics around the world, and French troops were stationed in Rome. Victor Emmanuel was wary of the international repercussions of attacking the Papal States, and discouraged his subjects from participating in revolutionary ventures with such intentions.

Nonetheless, Garibaldi believed that the government would support him if he attacked Rome. Frustrated at inaction by the king in June 1862, he sailed and landed again at Palermo, where he gathered volunteers, under the slogan Roma o Morte (Rome or Death). The garrison of Messina, barred their passage to the mainland. Garibaldi's force, turned south. Garibaldi declared that he would enter Rome as a victor or perish beneath its walls. He landed at Melito on August 14, and marched at once into the Calabrian mountains.

Meanwhile, Emmanuel sought a safer means to the acquisition of the Papal States. He negotiated the removal of the French troops from Rome through a treaty with Napoleon III. The pope was to expand his own army during that time so as to be self-sufficient. In December 1866, the last of the French troops departed from Rome, in spite of the efforts of the pope to retain them. By their withdrawal Italy was freed from the presence of foreign soldiers for the first time probably in a thousand years.

In the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, Austria contested with Prussia the position of leadership among the German states. The Kingdom of Italy seized the opportunity to capture Venetia from Austria and allied itself with Prussia. Austria tried to convince the Italian government to accept Venetia in exchange for non-intervention. However, Italy and Prussia signed an agreement and Italy declared war on Austria.

Meanwhile, Prussian Prime Minister Bismarck saw that his own ends in the war had been achieved, and signed an armistice with Austria. Italy officially laid down its arms. Garibaldi was called back from his successful march and resigned with a brief telegram reading only Obbedisco (I obey).

In spite of Italy's poor showing, Prussia's success on the northern front obligated Austria to cede Venetia in exchange for non-intervention in the Austro-Prussian War and thus Napoleon III ceded Venetia to Italy.

The national party, with Garibaldi at its head, still aimed at the possession of Rome, as the historic capital of the peninsula. In 1867 he made a second attempt to capture Rome, but the papal army, strengthened with a new French auxiliary force, defeated his badly armed volunteers.

In July 1870, the Franco-Prussian War began. In early August, the French Emperor Napoleon III recalled his garrison from Rome and could no longer protect the Papal State. Widespread public demonstrations demanded that the Italian government take Rome. The Italian government took no direct action until the collapse of the Second French Empire at the battle of Sedan. King Victor Emmanuel II sent Count Ponza di San Martino to Pius IX with a personal letter offering a face-saving proposal that would have allowed the peaceful entry of the Italian Army into Rome, under the guise of offering protection to the pope.

The Pope’s reception of di San Martino was unfriendly. Pius IX allowed violent outbursts to escape him. Throwing the King’s letter upon the table he exclaimed, "Fine loyalty! You are all a set of vipers, of whited sepulchres, and wanting in faith." After, growing calmer, he exclaimed: "I am no prophet, nor son of a prophet, but I tell you, you will never enter Rome!" San Martino was so mortified that he left the next day.

The Italian Army, crossed the papal frontier on September 11 and advanced slowly toward Rome, hoping that a peaceful entry could be negotiated. The Italian Army reached the Aurelian Walls on September 19 and placed Rome under a state of siege. Although now convinced of his unavoidable defeat, Pius IX remained intransigent to the bitter end and forced his troops to put up a token resistance.

On September 20, after a cannonade of three hours had breached the Aurelian Walls at Porta Pia, the army entered Rome and marched down Via Pia, which was subsequently renamed Via XX Settembre. 49 Italian soldiers and four officers, and 19 papal troops died. Rome and Latium were annexed to the Kingdom of Italy.

Initially the Italian government had offered to let the pope keep the Leonine City (the walled part of Rome on the opposite side of the Tiber from the Seven Hills of Rome). But the pope rejected the offer because acceptance would have been an implied endorsement of the legitimacy of the Italian kingdom's rule over his former domain.

Pius IX declared himself a prisoner in the Vatican, although he was not actually restrained from coming and going. Rather, being deposed and stripped of much of his former power also removed a measure of personal protection — if he had walked the streets of Rome he might have been in danger from political opponents who had formerly kept their views private.

Officially, the capital was not moved from Florence to Rome until July 1871.

ATHEIST MORALITY...SUPERIOR? YEP!

One of main arguments religious morons use against homosexuality and/or atheism is that without a belief in their god/faith we are immoral. Being religious is not a requirement of living a moral lifestyle. The church does not hold the patent on morality. First let's define the word moral.

Moral: relating to principles of right and wrong.

There are two sub-sets of morality, secular and religious. As the uniformity of beliefs is impossible to achieve, secular morality 'should' (if only) trump 'religious' in the modern scientific world.

Secular: Based on the modern and reasoned understanding that in order for peoples to get along and live in a just society, a set of mutually agreed upon rules pertaining to 'good and bad' behaviour should be established that apply to all equally. These are intended to avoid conflict and which by a society can achieve human advancement. Based on the principle that most will do what's right because it is right, with no ulterior motive or reward for their actions. Secular moralism embraces the principle that if the rules are not achieving their purpose they are to be revised or abandoned altogether. Under secularism all people regardless of their faith or lack thereof can get about their business without others imposing their religious intolerance upon them. Live and let live.

Religious: Based on ancient and supposed infallible rules of the Bible. They are a non-reasoned and fear motivated set of tenants that offer rewards and more often punishments. These articles of faith are magically transformed into universal 'truths' to be imposed against the will of all. The driving principle is that in order for people do to what's right they must be motivated by fear and the threat of eternal damnation. These laws are set in stone and cannot be altered. Christians threw a wrench in the works by teaching that Jesus will forgive any and all sins. This loop-hole does more to promote wrongdoing than any secular philosophy.

Conclusion: There is no need to create fictions for the purpose of moral motivation. There is no need to do what’s right because one wants to avoid punishment. There is no need for honorable people to act for the sake of a reward. We can avoid these pitfalls by embracing the principle that “Virtue is its own reward.”

I must credit the following authors to which I have paraphrased and borrowed heavily from for this argument. Charles Watts, 1880. Mark S. Halfon, 2004. Patrick Nowell-Smith, 1961. Please follow the following link, in which their eloquent arguments can be found in thier entirety:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/ETEXTS/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_9_MORALITY_VALUES/Morality_Secular.htm

WILL THE REAL CHURCH...PLEASE STAND UP!

Below is a compilation of various posts concerning the popes latest declaration.
Taken from http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2125395,00.html

This week's declaration by the Pope that the Church of England and other denominations are "not proper churches" was strictly for dogmatics. Anthropologists may explain that when a priest dresses up at the altar, gestures, chants and pretends to chew the body of Christ, he is doing what was done at Chichen Itza or the Borneo jungle for centuries past. Such antics are embedded in our cultural genes. This joker in Rome claiming supremacy via the greatest con in Europe's intellectual history, the 1870 Vatican council's invention of papal infallibility.

Seems to me the biggest problem with this latest pronouncement is that nobody was asking about it, so why say it at all. As iff this was a burning issue, like abortion or divorce or women priests, then again he must speak out, after all it is his job.

The Pope drew a distinction between the Orthodox churches, which he calls sisters (surely brothers?), and Protestants who lack a "sacramental priesthood ... and a Eucharistic Mystery", and whom he clearly regards as little short of pagan. First of all, this is an abuse of the word church, which is from the Teutonic circe (Scottish kirk) out of the Greek kuriakon doma, or house of the lord. The operative root is kurios, a chief or headman. This is as wide a definition of a priest, and thus of a church, as is imaginable.

If the Pope wants to try Latin, we are into ecclesia, from the Greek for assembly. This is invariably translated as a gathering or congregation of Christians, not just of those obedient to St Peter's. Augustine himself defined the word to signify both a body of believers and the place where they met, significamus locum qui continet. In other words, there is no textual justification for Benedict's exclusivity. It recalls the megalomania of Boniface VIII, who made such outrageous claims of supremacy that monarchs and even cardinals stopped listening, culminating in the schism of 1378 and eventually the Reformation. In saying that only Roman Catholicism is a "church", the Pope is merely redefining the word to suit his position. He is climbing to the top of Michelangelo's dome and beating his chest like King Kong.

Last week the prime minister of England announced he would no longer appoint bishops but leave it to the church authorities. Why stop there? Brown should have taken the opportunity to bring forward the formal disestablishment of the Church of England. This need not affect the Queen as patron of the church, but a son of the manse and head of what should be a secular 21st-century government could surely sweep away the remaining statist nonsense.

By "Proper Church" the Hypocrite Prince of the Organization means:

1. Where the misled, gullible are atoned with the perpetual systematic every Saturday forgiveness of all the sins to start again with seven days till the next time.

2. Where the celibate SOB's take advantage of young boy pages to molest them in the name of Christ.

3. Where second class citizen, the nuns are betrothed to the savior Jesus H Christ in secret ceremonies, with perhaps only a couple of Jewish rabbis setting in the back pews, as being the relatives of the groom.

4. Where many times a week the poor ignorant vast majority from the poorest countries of the world give up their hard earned wages for the hierarachy under the Prince to live high off the hog and dish out dogmas like no birth control, no marriages for the priests, nuns not allowed to conduct services but servitude in the name of the savior, hypocrite bondage and silence.

Yes indeed it sure is a proper chruch of the corrupt to the hilt secrecy and dogma invented to keep poor poorer, rich richer. Yes of course forgiveness is the order of the day as was for the crusades with murder of the millions, all in the name of the proper church.

Do you expect the CEO of Coca Cola to say that Pepsi is also a real cola?

Then why would one expect the chief of the Catholic church to admit that the other churches are also "proper churches"?

The success of the Roman clique and their rites rests upon their ownership of the idea of Sin, and the provision of a clergy which it is claimed can purge communicants of their guilt and shame. It is very powerful. Luther hacked away at the edifice of sacraments, and we need to be grateful to the Protestant reformers, more for their success in offering an alternative to clerical hegemony over the minds of the laity than for amending doctrine.

The papal inheritance of personal power within a rigid hierarchy is deeply objectionable; atheists are quite entitled to their opinion, because within the Catholic church, the faithful cannot speak freely and live in fear, a fear enjoined by Catholic doctrine.
It diminishes personal responsibility for one's actions and infects the social body, damaging educational and moral development.

Actually, all these cults, splinter groups and offshoots are the superstitionists' equivalent to cellphone plans: in the same way that the latter are designed to bamboozle consumers by making direct price comparisons impossible, the plethora of churches and splinter groups is intended to beat the atheists with sheer overload. As soon as one religion has been exposed as a fraud, three more pop up like mushrooms (nourished on similar stuff).

All religions are crutches, and if they help people who need a crutch, then they are a good thing. If they create viciousness, intolerance and spite, as appears to be the case even in this so-called enlightened age, then they are a bad thing.
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Latter Day Saintists, Scientologists, Mormons and Morons in general are convinced that they are entirely right at all times. But why should anybody care what I think, anymore than I should care what anybody else thinks of me?

One thing we all have in common, is our complete lack of significance in the long run.