D
Dan_Daly
Guest
As, I said, the best way to convince people is by living authentically Catholic lives. Which means loving. I think we are on the same page here. Love is pretty convincing stuff.While I say, “we conquer by loving.”
- Status
C
choliks
Guest
Agreed.
C
choliks
Guest
I take it back. How self-centered of me. Mea culpa. I should’ve have said, “Great Saints have said we conquered by loving.” I have forgotten about those who have gone before me. When I measure myself against them and what they’ve accomplished, I’m a mere grain of sand. And when I measure myself against God, I am nothing.What was it that St. Paul said about the bell and love?
"If I have not love . . . "
St. Maximilian Kolbe’s final words to the friars as they parted company, “Forget not love.”
St. Clare’s words to St. Francis when he was frustrated for not having converted the Sultan, “You showed him the power of love. Let God do the rest.”
St. Vincent de Paul when asked why the Daughters of Charity did not wear a nun’s habit. “Their veil is the veil of love.”
The other one from St. Clare that I truly love is in the same conversation about the Sultan, Francis expresses a desire to try again. Clare said to him, “There may be more Mohammedans in heaven than Catholics. ‘To whom much is given . . . much will be required.’ Stay and convert Catholics back to Christianity. They are in greater danger.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
You don’t have to take it back. Just add your name to the book of saints. You can do it.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
M
mytruepower2
Guest
“Religious Freedom” is much too broad a term to mean anything. We need to pin down a much more specific definition.
It could mean any of the following.
However, when modern governments oppose “religious freedom,” what they’re opposing is the idea that religion should even -have- a place in secular society at all. I’m on the side of the church in this, of course, but I consider it a moral issue, not an issue of religious freedom.
It could mean any of the following.
- The teaching that people should have the freedom to choose, ultimately, which religion they belong to.
- The teaching that the government should not execute or persecute people simply for belonging to a religion.
- The teaching that society should have no vested interest in promoting the wellbeing of one religion over the others.
- The teaching that all religions must have an equal place, or equal standing in society.
- The teaching that no religious practices may be interfered with by the state.
- The teaching that all religions are of equal worth.
However, when modern governments oppose “religious freedom,” what they’re opposing is the idea that religion should even -have- a place in secular society at all. I’m on the side of the church in this, of course, but I consider it a moral issue, not an issue of religious freedom.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Agreed, and one of those countries where the practice of human sacrifice is currently practiced is the United States. Indeed in recent years, some groups have articulated that they have a religious duty to obtain an abortion which must be preserved as part of their religious liberty.
Which is demonstrates why making “religious liberty” out to be an absolute right or the most important right is incredibly self defeating and dangerous.
Pax
J
JReducation
Guest
But we have to understand the OT in context. The state and the faith were all one thing. The state was born out of the faith. First came the call of Abraham and then came the birth of Israel. The birth of Israel is the product of a vocation. This is not the case today.
Nations are not born in response to a divine vocation. Nations are born in response to many needs that come together. Just look at our own country. The people who have immigrated to the USA and make it what it is have not come here for religious reasons alone or in response to a divine vocation.
What Cardinal Gibbons defines makes more sense for our time, a nation where the faith is reached without the influence of the state and a state that protects an individual’s freedom to respond to God’s call according to his conscience, as he understands the call and on God’s time, which may be a long process for some and a shorter one for others.
The idea is that the state neither enforces nor interferes with religion, but protects the rights of citizens to respond to God on His terms, not our terms.
We have to be very careful not to confuse religion with morals. The state has an obligation to follow morality as it is revealed to us in natural law. In fact, if the states did just that much, it would be a big improvement. We would not have to struggle with issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, promiscuity/prostitution w/o pay, etc. It is possible for the state to follow natural law without controlling or being controlled by any one religion. Plato and Confucius show us this very clearly. This idea is not just a Western one. It’s also been made known to Eastern thinkers independent of Western philosophers. Unfortunately, the study of law in this day and age is very poor in philosophy and very big on politics.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
M
mytruepower2
Guest
I am making no points with respect to the inherent value of the state. My point is that certain practices of religion are inherently immoral, and any truly just society will recognize this and come to the rescue of the injured parties.
This is essentially what I outlined in definition 1.
A very good reply, but there are several points here which I think merit consideration.We have to be very careful not to confuse religion with morals. The state has an obligation to follow morality as it is revealed to us in natural law. In fact, if the states did just that much, it would be a big improvement. We would not have to struggle with issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, promiscuity/prostitution w/o pay, etc. It is possible for the state to follow natural law without controlling or being controlled by any one religion. Plato and Confucius show us this very clearly. This idea is not just a Western one. It’s also been made known to Eastern thinkers independent of Western philosophers. Unfortunately, the study of law in this day and age is very poor in philosophy and very big on politics.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- With respect to Plato and Confucius, neither faced the terminal pluralism that haunts modern society, and both lived among people who were, by and large, seeking to know the truth. Furthermore, both were philosophers. My point is not that it is -impossible- for a secular state to survive. Just is that it’s ridiculous to suppose that the state can be indifferent as to whether its citizens believe the truth or lies. “The state” -consists- of its citizens, and there needs to be some kind of safeguard for the truth within society.
- However, even if it could be proven that it were possible for a society to endorse religious pluralism and remain standing, that -does not- prove that it is -best- for a society to do so. After all, it’s -possible- for me to carry a 150-lb weight on my back around the neighborhood for a year without dying, but it wouldn’t be the best thing for my back.
- Following from 2, the question of probabilities comes up. Is it more probable for a civilization dominated by religious pluralism to lead souls to salvation, or is it more probable that it will lead them to Hell? I admit that much of this is speculation, but something inside of me turns itself into a knot when I ask myself that question.
- Finally, remember that when we’re talking about pluralism and probabilities, what we’re really talking about is the fate of souls. Evildoers don’t think the same way we do about pluralism. Stalin, for example, said that each man imposes his own order as far as his army will reach. Now, I’m not saying that all non-Catholic faiths think this way, but I think it would be niave to assume that they all want to be democratic and fair, and play nice with us. Remember, God himself is black and white. There are no non-Catholics in Heaven. He doesn’t compromise. All this talk of pluralism, to me, just means lost ground when I think about it in that light.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
With respect, it is important to amend that to “neither enforces nor interferes with religion within due limits.”
Some religious practices must be interfered with because they are evils that harm the public good. An absolute statement that the civil law must not interfere with an individuals conscience is a invitation to anarchy. After all, laws against homicide infirnge on the serial killer’s exercise of his conscience.
To give an example that ties directly to the current situation, we find in Humanae Vitae:
.
Written by the same Pope who approved Dignitatis Humanae, Humanae Vitae appears to make it clear that contraception goes beyond those due limits, where errors can be tolerated, and that prohibition of contraception, even for those who erroneously think it acceptable, would be something needed to defend the common good.
People do have a duty to obey their conscience. However, emphasis on that duty alone without any attention to the matched duty to form a right conscience conformed to objective truth, does a great deal of harm.
Our Holy Father addresses this point very well in two books written before he became Pope. Truth and Tolerance and On Conscience. As he points out, a person’s conscience can be wrong, and he also denies it would be good to tolerate absolute civil religious freedom.
Pax Christi
J
JReducation
Guest
You’re agreeing with me. Here is what I said.
**
We have to be very careful not to confuse religion with morals. The state has an obligation to follow morality as it is revealed to us in natural law. In fact, if the states did just that much, it would be a big improvement. We would not have to struggle with issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, promiscuity/prostitution w/o pay, etc.**
As to religion, that’s another story. I believe that Bishop Fellay put it very well in a recent interview. He said the it had been explained to him, during these talks, that the Council never meant to say that error has rights. What it meant to say was that people have freedom and that freedom cannot be trampled on. Therefore, faith cannot be imposed by the Church nor by the state. Nor does anyone have the right to prohibit faith. Faith is far greater than religious observance. Religious observance is an expression of what one believes.
He was saying that he agrees with this vision of religious freedom. He even pointed to some countries, without mentioning them by name, where religious freedom does not exist. We know which those are. We don’t want a state that governs by force rather than by morals, nor a state that interferes with the work of grace.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
V
Vouthon
Guest
Well I am very impressed by Bishop Fellay I must sayI believe that Bishop Fellay put it very well in a recent interview. He said the it had been explained to him, during these talks, that the Council never meant to say that error has rights. What it meant to say was that people have freedom and that freedom cannot be trampled on. Therefore, faith cannot be imposed by the Church nor by the state. Nor does anyone have the right to prohibit faith. Faith is far greater than religious observance. Religious observance is an expression of what one believes.
He was saying that he agrees with this vision of religious freedom. He even pointed to some countries, without mentioning them by name, where religious freedom does not exist. We know which those are. We don’t want a state that governs by force rather than by morals, nor a state that interferes with the work of grace.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
What he says, brother Jreducation, is in line with my own thinking.
I have always maintained that error has no rights and that the Council never intended to revoke this belief of the nineteenth century papacy but rather uphold the perrenial teaching of the Catholic Church that faith cannot be compelled and that people have the freedom/right to be wrong/in error especially in matters of religion/civil sphere. This is because the dignity of the human person and their free-willed adherence too conscience is inviolable and impenetrable, under no human authority, subject to no outside compulsion, only answerable to God alone.
“…We decree moreover that no Christian shall compel them or any one of their group to come to baptism unwillingly. But if any one of them shall take refuge of his own accord with Christians, because of conviction, then, after his intention will have been manifest, he shall be made a Christian without any intrigue. For, indeed, that person who is known to have come to Christian baptism not freely, but unwillingly, is not believed to posses the Christian faith…”
- Blessed Pope Gregory X, Decree on the Jews, 1272
"…The Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will, for as St. Augustine reminds us, Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will…”
***- (Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei 1885) ***
“…Men ought not to be compelled to believe, because God will have mercy on those whom he will have mercy. As man fell by his own free will in listening to the wiles of the serpent, so man can only be converted by his free acceptance of the Christian faith…”
***- (Fourth Council of Toledo, 633) ***
“…Let no Jew be constrained to receive baptism, and he that will not consent to be baptized, let him not be molested. Let no one unjustly seize their property, disturb their feasts, or lay waste their cemeteries…”
- Pope Innocent III, 1198
“…Faith should be a matter of persuasion, not of imposition…”
- ***Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, 1090 –1153 ***
**"…Not to cite too many examples, let me quote for you only the beautiful letter addressed by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, to the son of King James II of England. This letter not only reflects the sentiments of his own heart, but formularizes in this particular the decrees of the Church, of which he was a distinguished ornament…"
- Cardinal James Gibbons, 1876**
With this in mind read the words of Archbishop Francois Fenelon (1651 – 1715), over 300 years ago.
“…Above all, never force your subjects to change their religion. No human power can reach the impenetrable recess of the free will of the heart. Violence can never persuade men; it serves only to make hypocrites. Grant civil liberty to all, not in approving everything as indifferent, but in tolerating with patience whatever Almighty God tolerates, and endeavoring to convert men by mild persuasion…THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG in matters of religious belief must be accorded, otherwise we produce hypocrites instead of persons with an enlightened belief that is fully their own. If the truth be mighty and God all-powerful, His children need not fear that disaster will follow freedom of thought…If we allow the world to hinder us, then our professed freedom is only a word…To abandon the sentiment of humanity is not merely to renounce civilization and to relapse into barbarism, it is to share in the blindness of the most brutish brigands and savages; it is to be a man no longer, but a cannibal…”
***- Archbishop François Fénelon (6 August 1651 – 7 January 1715) (Let. 30) ***
The teaching of the Church throughout history has been clear and Vatican II merely confirmed this doctrine.
J
JReducation
Guest
Well I am very impressed by Bishop Fellay I must say
What he says, brother Jreducation, is in line with my own thinking.
I have always maintained that error has no rights and that the Council never intended to revoke this belief of the nineteenth century papacy but rather uphold the perrenial teaching of the Catholic Church that faith cannot be compelled and that people have the freedom/right to be wrong/in error especially in matters of religion/civil sphere. This is because the dignity of the human person and their free-willed adherence too conscience is inviolable and impenetrable, under no human authority, subject to no outside compulsion, only answerable to God alone.
“…We decree moreover that no Christian shall compel them or any one of their group to come to baptism unwillingly. But if any one of them shall take refuge of his own accord with Christians, because of conviction, then, after his intention will have been manifest, he shall be made a Christian without any intrigue. For, indeed, that person who is known to have come to Christian baptism not freely, but unwillingly, is not believed to posses the Christian faith…”
- Blessed Pope Gregory X, Decree on the Jews, 1272
This came right out of the mandate that St. Francis gave to the brothers after he signed the accord with the Sultan. In the original letter to the friars it said, “I command, under penalty of grave sin, that no friar shall compel any Jew or Muslim to come to baptism uniwillingly . . . if it is not their desire and if they do not approach the brothers, the brothers are bound by charity and justice to leave them in peace.”
At this time, Pope Gregory elevated the Province of Jerusalem to a personal custody and renamed it the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land. To ensure that Jews were left in peace by the Christians, who were under the governance of the Franciscan Custos, the jurisdiction was placed directly under the oversight of the pope and remains that way until today. The superior general governs it with the oversight of the Holy See.
I believe that Pope Gregory also tried to protect the Jews in Spain at the request of the Dominicans.
Bl. John Paul said that evangelization invites, it does not proselytize.
Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I do believe we are in agreement. The difficulty comes because a great many Catholics and non-Catholics alike have poorly formed consciences and don’t recognize the natural law God has written on their hearts. In practice, this makes seperating “morals” from “religion” difficult. I can see a great many people saying “no the government shouldn’t force people against contraception to support it, but it shouldn’t violate my religious beliefs by prohibiting me from using it.”You’re agreeing with me. Here is what I said.
**
We have to be very careful not to confuse religion with morals. The state has an obligation to follow morality as it is revealed to us in natural law.** In fact, if the states did just that much, it would be a big improvement. We would not have to struggle with issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, promiscuity/prostitution w/o pay, etc.
As to religion, that’s another story. I believe that Bishop Fellay put it very well in a recent interview. He said the it had been explained to him, during these talks, that the Council never meant to say that error has rights. What it meant to say was that people have freedom and that freedom cannot be trampled on. Therefore, faith cannot be imposed by the Church nor by the state. Nor does anyone have the right to prohibit faith. Faith is far greater than religious observance. Religious observance is an expression of what one believes.
He was saying that he agrees with this vision of religious freedom. He even pointed to some countries, without mentioning them by name, where religious freedom does not exist. We know which those are. We don’t want a state that governs by force rather than by morals, nor a state that interferes with the work of grace.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
As I said, I support the state banning contraception (understanding this does not appear likely at the present moment, but it is a worthy goal to work towards). If that were to happen, a great many religious beliefs would be violated. Of course those beliefs are objectively wrong and harmful to the public good.
That’s why we need to start educating people, Catholic and not, about what a conscience really is and about natural law.
I always appreciate your comments on the boards JReducation.
Pax Christi
J
JReducation
Guest
I agree with you. I think part of the problem is that most people don’t understand the word “religion”. The contemporary usage of the term is very Protestant. The only two groups that I know who have the same understanding of religion are Catholics and Jews. As Mother Miriam (Rosiland Moss), Br. Bob Fisham, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and St. Edith Stein and I always say, “Catholicism is very Semitic.” Take away all of the pageantry out of the 23 Catholic Churches and leave the raw material and you’re left with a Christian Judaism composed of: Scripture, theology, observances/sacraments and moral law.
Neither Judaism nor Catholicism equates moral law with religion. Moral law is absolute and universal. It is written into the heart of man waiting to be discovered.
The way that we use the term “religion” today is not how Catholics and Jews used it until the Protestant Reformation. Reading ancient writings, especially the spiritual masters, we see that Jews and Catholics used the term religion to mean “the way”. It did not refer to institutions, cultures or churches. For example, St. Bernard and St. Francis both refer to “our holy religion”. Many people think that they’re talking about Catholicism. They were not. They never thought of Catholicism as a religion. The expression, “Our holy religion” referred to the way of life of their respective communities. Hence, a religious was one who followed “the way”. A consecrated religious was one who vowed to follow the way and to get it right or forfeit his or her soul, if he did not achieve the way of perfect charity. It was an alliance (re- ligiio cum-sacris). A re-covenant with the sacred, hence, consecrated religious. It had nothing to do with denominations and institutions, but it went deeper. It was about one’s journey to God.
In their minds, the state had nothing to do with this. The state’s duty was to protect the moral order, not to protect “the way”. The way did not need protection, least of all from the state whom both Bernard and Francis looked at with mistrust. That’s why they prohibited their followers from pledging allegiance to flags, nations, rulers and forms of government.
Religious liberty meant freedom to follow the way to God and they understood that people make that journey down different roads. Those who are truly searching for God will, if they live long enough, end up in the Church, even if they begin their journey from some other starting point. The best examples of this are Elizabeth Ann Seton, John Henry Newman and Edith Stein. These were non Catholics, but sincere in their search for truth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
M
mytruepower2
Guest
Speaking personally, I think the reason I never found the “natural law” line of reasoning compelling -is- that it seems to depend on what “God has written on their hearts.”
I’m a horrible sinner, by nature, and when I hear “written in my heart,” I assume that means I must have some inner desire to do the right, even in the face of failure. I don’t have this, and this may be why I take it as absolutely necessary for religion to safeguard morality in the public square.
It just seems perfectly obvious to me that secular society fails at this sooner or later.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
You are a horrible sinner, and you are good by nature. Same for all of us. God made all of creation, including men and women…good.
Man is fallen but not totally corrupt. As a consequence of original sin, there is indeed a tendancy to do evil, but man’s nature is still good. Natural law and the role of the state in preserving public order are not opposed to each other, but go hand in hand together.
M
mytruepower2
Guest
Regardless, our current nature is a fallen one, and so we’re likely to fail when left to our own devices.
My point is merely that the tremendous struggle involved in repeatedly doing what I least want to do (the right thing,) needs to be driven by something bigger than just a gaggle of human beings; however they arrange themselves.
This is why I try not to separate morality and religion. Aside from the ontological question (morality has no objective basis unless God exists,) the continued lack of serious religious presence within society taxes my ability to motivate myself to continue the fight against sin.
I admit that this problem with motivations is largely subjective, but if -I- can have this problem, I’m willing to bet that others can have it too.
B
Bryan77
Guest
I’m confused. Why are people arguing against Religious Liberty? Did popes in the past really speak against it? How can the government forcing us to supply abortions and contraceptives be a good thing? Or worse, if they start making it illegal to celebrate Mass, like they did in Mexico not too long ago.
So if our rights as Catholics are being persecuted by the government, we’re supposed to just sit back and let it happen? I don’t understand the logic behind that.
(The linked article has been deleted)
So if our rights as Catholics are being persecuted by the government, we’re supposed to just sit back and let it happen? I don’t understand the logic behind that.
(The linked article has been deleted)
M
mytruepower2
Guest
“Religious Liberty” is political shorthand for “not persecuting the church in America,” but outside of political circles, it carries a much broader meaning.
You see, what “religious liberty,” really means is that if you belong to something that you can -call- a religion, you have the right to exercise the practices of that religion, regardless of what the law says, and this has -never- been the position of the church.
The church’s position is that the -law- needs to be in conformity with authentic morality, in order to be a genuine law. When a law oppressively forces people to commit immoral acts, it is not a law, but a perversion of law.
Why is this distinction so important? Because, if my religion happens to value the chopping off of people’s heads as a religious ceremony, and we have undisputed religious freedom, how will you stop me? This is ultimately the question we need to ask about where “religious freedom” begins and ends.
The only possible answer is that it ends when a religion commands you to do something immoral.
Because of this, this battle for “religious freedom” cannot be won as long as it’s the freedom we’re concerned with. We need to get back to the cold hard facts. God exists. Objective moral values exist. Some things are right. Others are wrong. Even governments must take heed to this, or bring about their own ruin. We can’t fight on the enemy’s territory of “we want our rights.” We need to start saying “what they’re doing is evil” again.
B
Bryan77
Guest
I see. That makes a lot of sense. I thought about the same thing myself.
So is the “Fortnight For Freedom” that the Bishops have called for a good thing or a bad thing? And what about the recent Religious Freedom Rallys?
So is the “Fortnight For Freedom” that the Bishops have called for a good thing or a bad thing? And what about the recent Religious Freedom Rallys?
- Status