Catholic Faith vs American Rights

[dean24us]

Hello! First off, please know that I am not “trolling” with this post, nor do I seek to offend. This web site has been a key resource for me to learn about the faith over the past two years, and I sincerely hope that the folks here can help clear up an issue I am having.

I have been wrestling with a logical “inconsistency” (for lack of a better term) for a couple months, so I wanted to bounce my thoughts off the group to see if I’m missing something. This issue has two separate but closely related parts:

1. How can we (Catholics) support the American/Western value of freedom of religion, considering that God is EXTREMELY clear in both the OT and NT that he is the one and only God, and He commands us to “…make disciples of all nations…”? It seems to me that by supporting freedom of religion, Catholics are tacitly (if not actively) supporting others in violating the First Commandment (i.e. a grave matter and mortal sin), which would seem to make us complicit in sin. Don’t get me wrong – I support freedom of religion and am definitely NOT speaking out against it – but the rationale of WHY we why support it is confusing to me.
2. Assuming that we can indeed support a law which is seemingly contradictory to the faith (i.e., question #1 above), doesn’t that open the door for Catholics to support other secular laws that are contrary to the faith? For example, why can’t we use the same logic to support same sex marriage on a legal/secular level but reject it on a personal/religious level?

I hope these questions make sense – please let me know if they don’t. Again, I don’t seek to offend but rather to gain understanding. No flames please…

Best wishes,
Dean

 

[JRKH]

A very short answer - -

Did God give man Free Will?

If God Gave man Free Will then who are we to “Force” our Faith on another…

Freedom of religion simply affirms mans’ God given Free Will…

Make sense?

Peace
James

 

[joshrp]

Hello! First off, please know that I am not “trolling” with this post, nor do I seek to offend. This web site has been a key resource for me to learn about the faith over the past two years, and I sincerely hope that the folks here can help clear up an issue I am having.

I have been wrestling with a logical “inconsistency” (for lack of a better term) for a couple months, so I wanted to bounce my thoughts off the group to see if I’m missing something. This issue has two separate but closely related parts:

1. How can we (Catholics) support the American/Western value of freedom of religion, considering that God is EXTREMELY clear in both the OT and NT that he is the one and only God, and He commands us to “…make disciples of all nations…”? It seems to me that by supporting freedom of religion, Catholics are tacitly (if not actively) supporting others in violating the First Commandment (i.e. a grave matter and mortal sin), which would seem to make us complicit in sin. Don’t get me wrong – I support freedom of religion and am definitely NOT speaking out against it – but the rationale of WHY we why support it is confusing to me.
2. Assuming that we can indeed support a law which is seemingly contradictory to the faith (i.e., question #1 above), doesn’t that open the door for Catholics to support other secular laws that are contrary to the faith? For example, why can’t we use the same logic to support same sex marriage on a legal/secular level but reject it on a personal/religious level?

I hope these questions make sense – please let me know if they don’t. Again, I don’t seek to offend but rather to gain understanding. No flames please…

Best wishes,
Dean

You cannot force people to accept your faith. Do what works, not what doesn’t. Forcing your faith on others does not make other people into Christ’s disciples. So why would you do it? That would consist of breaking God’s commandment to make disciples of all nations. If a nation wants to become Catholic that is that nation’s choice. Otherwise, it is just a lie. You are more likely to gain a disciple of someone else by respecting their freedom to choose their own religion than by forcing them to accept yours in a superficial way. People cannot believe what they do not understand. Only the Holy Spirit gives someone belief in Christ, not us. We are simply to tell people what we know, and let them try to understand it, with our help if they desire it.

 

[_L]

In the Catholic understanding, freedom of religion does not mean you have a right before God to worship falsely it means that you will not be imprisoned for your erroneous beliefs, and instead it is best to evangelize people civilly instead of prosecuting them criminally for being in error as to what religion they are.

With that said there is nothing wrong with another country that does not share these same values outlawing a false religion which was the norm in Catholic establishment countries way back when. After all the kingdom of Heaven itself has no room for falsehood of any kind let alone false religion.

 

[Rence]

Hello! First off, please know that I am not “trolling” with this post, nor do I seek to offend. This web site has been a key resource for me to learn about the faith over the past two years, and I sincerely hope that the folks here can help clear up an issue I am having.

Hello and welcome! Yes, you’ll learn a lot about Catholics and Catholicism here It’s a great resource. Before I came here, I didn’t even know that encyclicals were there for the downloading, available for all to read. And for every question, you’ll get a lot of citations from canon law and the CCC and encylicals and the Bible. Articles and other resources are cited too.

1. How can we (Catholics) support the American/Western value of freedom of religion, considering that God is EXTREMELY clear in both the OT and NT that he is the one and only God, and He commands us to “…make disciples of all nations…”? It seems to me that by supporting freedom of religion, Catholics are tacitly (if not actively) supporting others in violating the First Commandment (i.e. a grave matter and mortal sin), which would seem to make us complicit in sin. Don’t get me wrong – I support freedom of religion and am definitely NOT speaking out against it – but the rationale of WHY we why support it is confusing to me.

Well, this is what the Catechism says about other religions. Maybe this will help you:

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

 

[Rence]

1. Assuming that we can indeed support a law which is seemingly contradictory to the faith (i.e., question #1 above), doesn’t that open the door for Catholics to support other secular laws that are contrary to the faith? For example, why can’t we use the same logic to support same sex marriage on a legal/secular level but reject it on a personal/religious level?

Yes, I can see how confusing it is for you. It’s that way with me too. I can’t process how on the one hand, we are called to respect other people’s differences and then on the other hand, we have to disrgard their differences in light of the Church’s rules and laws. I have a hard time with this too. But the Church wants us to respect the rights of individuals as long as these rights don’t conflict with the rules of the Church. Like, the CCC says we have to follow our conscience, but only if it conforms to the rules of the Church. How about that?

So, for example, the Church supports freedom of religion. And so we should respect the fact that another person is of another faith (without ignoring the call to evangelize), but if that person is doing something contrary to Church teaching then we are called by the Church to not respect that difference.

I see what you’re concern is though, because it’s been ingrained in many of us to practice our religion, and allow others to practice theirs…and then at the same time, we’re told by the Church to oppose their religious practices when they don’t agree with the Church’s rules and laws. So, yes, it’s confusing. I guess it’s all about balance.

I hope these questions make sense – please let me know if they don’t. Again, I don’t seek to offend but rather to gain understanding. No flames please…

They totally make sense but I know I don’t have a sufficient answer for you. I was raised in a well integrated big city, where there were many different religions and cultures and so on. I was raised by strict Catholic parents, went to Catholic grammar school, Catholic high school, Catholic college and Catholic university, and it was always the same: Follow the rules of the Church, but understand that people of different faiths and cultures feel the same way about their religion that we do about ours, and respect their choices and allow their differences. But the notion that we have to be in everyone else’s business if they are doing somethiing contrary to Catholic teaching is a very difficult concept for me. And to be honest, I’ve never heard of this “absolute truth” business until I started frequenting online Catholic forums. In fact, “absolutism” was always a negative word all my life. And to be honest again, I’ve never made that transition over to the “absolutism” side of the coin.

I consider the fact that I am Catholic, and that I am allowed to practice my faith, and live my life in accordance to Catholic rules and laws, without any opposition from another party who doesn’t agree. The Muslim down the street can’t stop me. The Jewish person can’t stop me. The athiest can’t stop me. The JW can’t stop me. And quite frankly, knowing that in our past, that wasn’t the case, I’m grateful enough to allow others their choices in life as well.

 

[SteveGC]

Good answers so far.

Indeed, “make disciples” does not mean “fight to ensure the Catholic faith is the only legal choice”. It means “share with all the good news of Christ, encourage their commitment, guide them in ways of the faith”. Allowing others to not be persecuted for their choices to the contrary is an act of charity, not sin.

On the other hand, supporting the advancement of intrinsic evils (murder via abortion, or the normalization of homosexual acts and perversion of marriage via homosexual marriage) is gravely sinful in itself. When we choose to separate our personal belief from our public vote, we are making an affirmation that these intrinsic evils are tolerable and lack negative effect on the human race. Catholics are called to fight for secular laws to reflect Catholic morality, which we believe is the objective, absolute morality of the entire world. Allowing others the freedom to choose a religious practice does not violate this moral standard.

 

[dean24us]

Thanks to all for the responses thus far. I think that Rence eloquently explained the internal struggle I am having:

Yes, I can see how confusing it is for you. It’s that way with me too. I can’t process how on the one hand, we are called to respect other people’s differences and then on the other hand, we have to disrgard their differences in light of the Church’s rules and laws. I have a hard time with this too. But the Church wants us to respect the rights of individuals as long as these rights don’t conflict with the rules of the Church. Like, the CCC says we have to follow our conscience, but only if it conforms to the rules of the Church. How about that?

I realized that most of the responses are solely addressing the “freedom of religion” portion of my question, so let me digress for a moment to better explain my cognitive dissonance.

On the one hand, we are called on to support equality and the expression of free will without government intervention (a.k.a. freedom) for both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I’m sure that everybody can think of others (freedom of speech, etc), but an example of this that comes to my mind is freedom of religion. I think that most Christians would agree that worshiping any god (or no god at all) other than our God (the Trinity, “God of Abraham”, etc) is quite probably the gravest of sins one can commit. However, we support the secular right for non-Catholics (or non-Christians, if you prefer) to worship any god they choose, and we express this support through our values, what we say in public discourse, and how we vote at the ballot box. In short, we actively support this secular policy that allow persons of free will to make a decision on what (if any) god to worship, despite the fact that we believe that the worship of any god other than our God is a grave matter and a mortal sin.

On the other hand, we are compelled to oppose other secular policies which we believe sinful. Again, I’m sure we can all think of other examples, but the one that comes to my mind is same sex marriage. Like freedom of religion, same sex marriage has the potential to allow a persons of free will to pursue a lifestyle that the Church considers a mortal sin. But unlike freedom of religion, we are called upon to oppose same sex marriage by what we say and how we vote, based upon the fact that we considered same sex marriage to be sinful and a violation of what God intended marriage to be. This is opposition is done despite the fact this this policy limits equality and the expression of free will.

When you look at the ramifications of both freedom of religion and same sex marriage, the possible end result appears to be the same: both have the potential to lead to mortal sin. Yet one is considered “good” while the other is considered “bad”. So, if you want to look at it this way, the crux of my question is this: how can we support some secular laws that could result in mortal sin but support the concepts of equality and expression of mankind’s free will (i.e., freedom of religion), while at the same time oppose other secular laws that also have the potential for mortal sin while supporting equality and the expression of free will (i.e., same sex marriage)?

Again, I hope this line of questioning isn’t taken as offensive – I am truly seeking to better understand my faith, not to start a fight.

Best wishes,
Dean

 

[JRKH]

This is a very good question.
There can be a fine line between protecting ones rights and at the same time protecting morality in the community.
The things that we are called to oppose (Same sex marriage, abortion etc.) are based on something broader than just “Catholicism”. They are opposed on moral grounds that (should) reflect the community as a whole.
Same sex marriage seeks to redefine the definition of marriage that has been universally accepted for millenia. We seek to protect this definition.
In actuality the Church does try to find middle ground between freedom and morality wherever it can. In the example of Same sex marriage, I believe that there was a document put out by the USCCB that basically said that if a bill (Civil union) were introduced that provided the legal protections (insurance, inheritance etc.) commonly associated with marriage, such a bill might be acceptable since it would not “redefine marriage”.
Abortion is another issue that we must oppose, not because we are Catholics but because we believe that children are being killed.

I’m sure others will be able to explain this better than I.

Peace
James

 

[dean24us]

James,

Thanks for the response! You’ve given me some info to reflect on, and I’m hoping others will do provide additional comments.

I don’t mean this to come off as an attack (so PLEASE don’t take it as such), but I wanted to clarify on the abortion front. In asking my questions regarding faith and rights, I AM NOT attempting to justify abortion in any way, shape, or form. I 100% agree that abortion is murder, not to mention the fact that people who get (and give) abortions are depriving babies of any possibility of free will and/or equality (you can’t very well be considered as having free will if you were never born). My question is regarding why the Church supports or opposes varying secular rights is limited to those rights of people who have free will, not the innocent babies who never have a chance.

Thanks again,
Dean

 

[JRKH]

James,

Thanks for the response! You’ve given me some info to reflect on, and I’m hoping others will do provide additional comments.

I don’t mean this to come off as an attack (so PLEASE don’t take it as such), but I wanted to clarify on the abortion front. In asking my questions regarding faith and rights, I AM NOT attempting to justify abortion in any way, shape, or form. I 100% agree that abortion is murder, not to mention the fact that people who get (and give) abortions are depriving babies of any possibility of free will and/or equality (you can’t very well be considered as having free will if you were never born). My question is regarding why the Church supports or opposes varying secular rights is limited to those rights of people who have free will, not the innocent babies who never have a chance.

Thanks again,
Dean

Understood. I see that you are trying to gain a proper understanding and focus. You keep asking questions.
The only reason that I brought up abortion is because it is, like SSM an issue that we may not “give in” on and also one that is widely debated.

Peace
James

 

[SteveGC]

Thanks to all for the responses thus far. I think that Rence eloquently explained the internal struggle I am having:

I realized that most of the responses are solely addressing the “freedom of religion” portion of my question, so let me digress for a moment to better explain my cognitive dissonance.

On the one hand, we are called on to support equality and the expression of free will without government intervention (a.k.a. freedom) for both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I’m sure that everybody can think of others (freedom of speech, etc), but an example of this that comes to my mind is freedom of religion. I think that most Christians would agree that worshiping any god (or no god at all) other than our God (the Trinity, “God of Abraham”, etc) is quite probably the gravest of sins one can commit. However, we support the secular right for non-Catholics (or non-Christians, if you prefer) to worship any god they choose, and we express this support through our values, what we say in public discourse, and how we vote at the ballot box. In short, we actively support this secular policy that allow persons of free will to make a decision on what (if any) god to worship, despite the fact that we believe that the worship of any god other than our God is a grave matter and a mortal sin.

On the other hand, we are compelled to oppose other secular policies which we believe sinful. Again, I’m sure we can all think of other examples, but the one that comes to my mind is same sex marriage. Like freedom of religion, same sex marriage has the potential to allow a persons of free will to pursue a lifestyle that the Church considers a mortal sin. But unlike freedom of religion, we are called upon to oppose same sex marriage by what we say and how we vote, based upon the fact that we considered same sex marriage to be sinful and a violation of what God intended marriage to be. This is opposition is done despite the fact this this policy limits equality and the expression of free will.

When you look at the ramifications of both freedom of religion and same sex marriage, the possible end result appears to be the same: both have the potential to lead to mortal sin. Yet one is considered “good” while the other is considered “bad”. So, if you want to look at it this way, the crux of my question is this: how can we support some secular laws that could result in mortal sin but support the concepts of equality and expression of mankind’s free will (i.e., freedom of religion), while at the same time oppose other secular laws that also have the potential for mortal sin while supporting equality and the expression of free will (i.e., same sex marriage)?

Again, I hope this line of questioning isn’t taken as offensive – I am truly seeking to better understand my faith, not to start a fight.

Best wishes,
Dean

I think your dilemma revolves around an attempt to equate freedom of religion with freedom for a man to marry a man, or freedom to abort an innocent child. These are not inherently equal issues. The latter two are intrinsic evils. There is no situation, variable, circumstance or caveat that would transform same sex marriage or abortion into good. They are inherently bad.

On the other hand, it is not inherently bad for someone to be able to freely choose a spiritual path, because one choice they could make is God. Because it is plausible for freedom of religion to result in worship of the one true God, it can be inherently very good indeed, and thus it is not sinful for the faithful to not fight against this freedom. It is in fact, a much more charitable way to ensure people come to the one true God for the right reasons, i.e. not by force.

 

[dean24us]

I think your dilemma revolves around an attempt to equate freedom of religion with freedom for a man to marry a man, or freedom to abort an innocent child. These are not inherently equal issues. The latter two are intrinsic evils. There is no situation, variable, circumstance or caveat that would transform same sex marriage or abortion into good. They are inherently bad.

On the other hand, it is not inherently bad for someone to be able to freely choose a spiritual path, because one choice they could make is God. Because it is plausible for freedom of religion to result in worship of the one true God, it can be inherently very good indeed, and thus it is not sinful for the faithful to not fight against this freedom. It is in fact, a much more charitable way to ensure people come to the one true God for the right reasons, i.e. not by force.

Steve,

What you said makes a lot of sense – thanks for sharing!!!

So, if I am understanding correctly, the difference between the “good” and “bad” secular policies I mentioned previously isn’t necessarily whether they support equality and the expression of free will, but rather if ANY potential exists for it to bring individuals closer to God. Sound right?

Best wishes,
Dean

 

[SteveGC]

Steve,

What you said makes a lot of sense – thanks for sharing!!!

So, if I am understanding correctly, the difference between the “good” and “bad” secular policies I mentioned previously isn’t necessarily whether they support equality and the expression of free will, but rather if ANY potential exists for it to bring individuals closer to God. Sound right?

Best wishes,
Dean

That’s another good way of putting it, yes.

And remember, laws do not inherently deny the expression of free will. No law can force a man to believe what he does not want to believe, or attempt to do what he wants to do. Sure, we can suppress him physically with law enforcement and confinement, but his free will is never actually suppressed.