ing breeches and book covers. Not een the heirs of the FrenchrnReokition, who met in 1939 flying their red banners in thernheart of Poland, engaged in similar atrocihes: They committedrnmurders in much greater quantit}-, but never achieved the diabolicalrnqualit}’ of their 18th-centur’ ancestors.rnThe extermination of Christianih was a major goal of thernrevolutions of 17S9 and 1917, and both rightists and conservativesrnhave been identified with the defense of religion.rnHowever, the religious implications of our discussion of thesernterms go beyond the propaganda of both Catholics and Protestants.rnThe thesis that there is a straight line of developmentrnfrom the Reformation to the First Fnlightenment, flie FrenchrnRevolution, and its three offspring is extremely popidar amongrnCatholic rightists. Luther appeared as a liberal, democraticrnprogressivist who was riding high on the waves of the Renaissancernand therefore was responsible for the unspeakable atrocitiesrnof our infamous eenturw Reacting indirectly to this conviction,rnordinar}- Catholics, especially in the United States,rnengaged in a fulsome praise of the Middle Ages. As a matter ofrnfact, in the United States much more so flian in Europe, therernexists between Catholics and Protestants an ignoble competitionrnin misrepresenting the character of the Reformation.rnLuther and Calvin rebelled (violently, in fact) against the spiritrnof Christian humanism and the Renaissance. The real “moment”rnof the Reformation is the winter of 1510-11, whenrnLuther stayed in Rome and was confronted by the spirit of antiquit)’rnin the form of the Renaissance, which, until then, hernhad known only in a purely literarv’ form. Now he could see itrnand touch it with his hands.rnThe reformers, as medieval men, were arch-conservatives,rnbut they also denied free will and believed in predestination,rnopposed reason, had contempt for philosophy, hoped for salvationrnby “faith alone,” and were (with the exception of Zwingli)rnconvinced that all the sages of antiqiut’ (just as all non-Christians)rnwere roasting in the everlasting fires of Hell. They establishedrnstate churches under secular rulers and were “conservatives”rnin the most literal sense of the word. Thev accused thernCafliolic Church for additions, meaning changes, and in thisrnthey were correct. They wanted to go “back” to an imaginaryrn”original Church.” But the Catholic Church is not “consenative”:rnWithout changing her foundations and like a skyscraperrnin construction, she is “additi’e.” (She might change rituals,rnlaws, and regulations, and even add new dogmas, but neverrn”cancel” one. She is a live body.) This is the reason why therernare no conservative parties in Europe’s Catholic countries. Yourncan have parties with the “conservative” label in Scandinaia,rnBritain, or Canada, but not in Spain, Austria, Italy, or Slovakia.rn(There are, I have to admit, parties with strong Catholic supportrncalling themselves “Christian Democratic,” even though LeornXIII, in the encyclical Graves de communi, forbade the politicalrnuse of this term, but few politicians are serious readers.)rnThe immediate residt of the Reformation was a loss of generalrnliberties. Life in Geneva became even more totalitarianrnthan in the Massachusetts of the Puritans. In tridy post-medievalrncountries, however, life had become sweet, humane,rnand enormously variable. Everett Dean Martin, a Congregationalrnminister, in his Liberty (1930) said that Americans, havingrnmissed the Renaissance, have never had a chance trulv tornbe free, and the same suspicion lies behind D.H. Lawrence’srnStudies in Classic American Literature. To believe that freedomrncan be given, granted, or assured b mere legislation, b paragraphsrnand constitutions, is naive (the same naivete is at the bottomrnof feminism).rnDuring the Enlightenment, “Protestantism” was pervertedrninto the ver’ contrary of what the Reformers aimed at: a veryrnstrict, disciplined, and severe form of simple, fideistic Christianih,rnculturally almost inactive and suspicious of all additions,rnof “frills.” Pastor Niemoller, who later received the LeninrnPrize, explained to me in 1947 that Protestants should not bernafraid of a communist wave of oppression because all they needrnis a handy, small pocket Bible printed on India paper, while thernpoor Catiiolics need culture: architecture, painting, literature,rnpoetrv, musical composition, and so forth.rnIn die United States, the true believers of the Reformationrnfaiths do not form cxacfly the general staff of the conservativernmovement, but certainly a very large segment of the rank andrnfile. Among American conservatives, one also can find (ex-liberal)rnlibertarians, true rightists, populist intellectual-baitingrndemocrats, evangelical fimdamentalists, and Lefebvrists. Somernmereh’ want to protect their savings, others primarily want tornfight “permissive crime,” while few have the courage to attackrnwhat had been called the “Religion of Democracy,” which EricrnVocgelin rightiy considered a gnostic phenomenon. Veryrnrare are those who envisage or plan a real alternative or realizernthat a “consen-ative,” a man or a woman on the right, is, at leastrnat heart, a real revolutionan’ and must reject the present order,rnwhich, of course, will pass as does ever)’thing else. There is norn”end of history.” SLAT CRUX DUM VOLVITUR ORBISrn(“The Cross stands while the Earth turns around”). Yet withoutrnplanning for a future in which quality (i.e., knowledge, experience,rnand solid ethics) prevails, much worse might follow. Thernmere counting of noses must come to an end. We ought tornlearn from Ecclesiasticus 38:25-39.rnThere are two subjects which I should touch upon since theyrnare of grave concern to American conservatives —ideologiesrnand Utopias. Since ideologies and the efforts to realize Utopiasrnhave created inmiense harm and suffering in the last 200rnyears —a minimum of 80 million victims —they can be viewedrnver’ negatively. The same coidd be said of religions, constitutions,rnsexual activities, educational theories, the mass media,rnears, airplanes, trade unions, and even sports. Man is not onlyrna religious but also an ideological animal. Put anybody on arncouch and question him for 20 minutes, and the dim outiine ofrnan ideolog’ vill appear, a more or less coherent view of life inrnthis wodd (and also in the ne.xt one). Ideologies are inescapablernto thinking people, and the} might either grow^ out of a religiousrnfaith or—and here lies the great danger—replace it, becomingrnsometimes a fanatical secular religion.rnThe same is true of Utopias. An Outopos is a ‘ision of a nonexistentrnplace or order which, as an improvement, ought to bernestablished. Like reason, imagination is, after all, one of therngreat human privileges, and since this world is, in the words ofrnthe Psalmist and of Christian prayers, a “Valley of Tears,” it isrnperfectiy legitimate to make plans for a general improvement.rnMalheur a celui qui n’a jamais reve, Gustave Thibon told us:rn”Woe to him who has never dreamt.” Saint Thomas More gavernus the term “Utopia,” and this martyr to the Faith playfully designedrna social and political order as far as it could be establishedrnwifliout revelation and resting solely on reason.rnYet certain Utopias can become ideological substitutes forrnChrist’s promises. Just as there are acceptable, mediocre, crazy,rnand Satanic ideologies, a similar distinction has to be madernamong Utopias. Some, conflicting with reason, could never bern16/CHRONICLESrnrnrn