'Pro-Choice Catholic Politicians' to Be Sued for Heresy

[CatholicforBush]

Ten questions regarding the denial of the Eucharist **BARBARA KRALIS **Several U.S. bishops have recently voiced their opposition and ersatz reasoning why no one should be denied the Eucharist according to Code of Canon Law n. 915. Those in the pews are perplexed. Which bishop is correct?

http://catholiceducation.org/images/religious general/communion2.JPGWhy would some bishops teach that the laws are binding and other bishops teach that they are not?1 Quizzically, people are asking ten questions:

1) “Why should the Church deny the Eucharist to hundreds of ‘Catholic’ pro abortion politicians?”

Answer: The Catholic Church condemns abortion,2 euthanasia,3 sodomy,4 cloning,5 embryonic stem cell research,6 as well as other attacks against the sanctity of life and the family. It is the obligation of the bishop to follow canon law. Canon Law n.915 mandates the denial of Communion to all “manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners,” including but not exclusive to politicians. 7 Canon 915 not only protects the Eucharist from sacrilegious reception, but also prevents the faithful from sorrowful scandal.

It’s important to understand what ‘manifest, obstinate, persistent’ means. Many wrongly think it applies only to politicians. 8 This is not so.

If a Catholic is a ‘manifest’ sinner, that means he is ‘known,’ or ‘public.’ This must be differentiated from the Catholics who are in the state of ‘private’ grave sin, to whom their sin is known only to themselves and God. The private grave sinner cannot be denied the Eucharist because their sin is unknown to the bishop, to his priests, and his ministers of the Eucharist.

If a Catholic is gravely ‘manifest’ and ‘obstinate’ in his sin, that means he pigheadedly continues to ‘persist’ or ‘stand firm’ in grave sin that is ‘public’ in nature and causes scandal to others. This is quite different from those who persist in ‘private’ sin.

‘Catholic’ pro-abortion politicians are certainly manifest, obstinate and persistent sinners and they are thus subject to the provisions of c.915.9

2) “If they deny politicians, then shouldn’t they deny all public sinners?”

Answer: Not only does this canonical discipline c.915 include the estimated 500 so-called ‘Catholic’ pro-abortion politicians in the U.S., but it also includes other manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners such as homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm-in-arm or with sodomite rainbow banners over their shoulders, those divorced and ‘remarried’ without benefit of annulment10, directors of abortion mills and Planned Parenthood, Mafia figures, drug lords, notorious criminals, couples living openly in fornication or adultery (this is certainly not an exhaustive list of manifest sinners).3) “What about the couple or individual who lives in grave sin ‘privately’ and their Pastor is made aware of their sin? Should their Pastor deny them the Eucharist?”

Answer: No. Not if most people do not know this. He cannot make their sin known to people. The priest cannot make known the sins of others, if it is not already manifest. It’s related to the seal of confession.11 If it becomes known by most in the parish, then the priest might then be obliged to deny the Eucharist under c.915 so as not to cause scandal.4) “Isn’t there supposed to be a separation of Church and State?

Answer: The Founding Fathers of our nation believed in the promotion of religion, as the text to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads*:* “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

The Fathers merely wanted to avoid a state church or any other favoring of one Christian denomination over another. In other words, the object was to avoid favoritism and compulsion, nothing more. 12

It would be a sad day in America if only Catholics believed in protection of innocent life.13

Continued on next post

 

[CatholicforBush]

CatholicforBush:

Ten questions regarding the denial of the Eucharist

5) “Can the Church tell its members how to legislate and vote?”

**Answer: ** The Church is not asking Catholic legislators to impose her beliefs on unwilling populace. Rather, the Church is calling upon her Catholic legislators to defend human life, which is a basic responsibility of all civic institutions.14 The Church is not trying to influence legislation but instead is protecting the dignity of the Sacrament and addressing the grave scandal of Catholic legislators who fail to defend innocent life.

Implying that the Church is trying to tell its members how to vote is erroneous. It never directs its members to cast their vote for any specific party or candidate. It is reiterating that abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, cloning and embryonic stem cell research (this is not an exhaustive list) are intrinsically evil in and of themselves; all other human rights pale in comparison to the right of life of the unborn.

6) “Isn’t the Church turning the Eucharist into a weapon? No one should be denied the Eucharist. Where is the freedom of conscience?”

Answer: It is true that c.912 does say, “Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to Holy Communion.” However, c.912 commentary further explains: “unless the existence of some impediment is evidence in the external forum of c.915.”15 Canon 915 states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are forbidden by law from receiving Holy Communion.”

It is dishonest to use c.912 to justify permitting grave manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners to the Eucharist. It is a mockery of the faith and belies ones identity as a Catholic believer.

True freedom is not doing what you want to do, but doing what you ought to do.16The Church teaches, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.”17

Conscience is not the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience is the voice of truth within you and your opinions and feelings must reflect your well-informed conscience.18 A well-informed conscience is one that is totally in accord with the church’s magisterial teachings. If one is well informed (catechized), their conscience will be correctly informed. This transcends any choice for political party or candidate.

No pope or ecumenical council has ever said that Catholics who hold public office are excused from living by the teachings of the Church.19

"Christians, like all people of goodwill, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts, which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from the responsibility, and on the basis of it, everyone will be judged by God Himself.”20

7) “Why not deny Communion to politicians and laity who support the death penalty and the Iraq war?”

Answer: The Church has never taught, and does not teach now, that the death penalty and war are evil in all instances. But, the church has always clearly condemned abortion, sodomy, euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research in all instances. The Church teaches that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good and citizens against the aggressor, even if it has to resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient.21

continued next post

 

[CatholicforBush]

CatholicforBush:

CatholicforBush:

Ten questions regarding the denial of the Eucharist

8) “All I hear is the ‘right to life.’ What about the right to employment, the right to water, the right to food and clothing, the right to protection of the environment?”

Answer: Without the right to life, no other rights are possible.

As men and women of good will we strive to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. There is, however, one right that is “inalienable”, and that is the right to life. This is the first right. This is the right that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that trumps all other issues. 22

Here is this from the Didache circa A.D. 80:23 “You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born.”

The Catholic Church’s social teachings are vast and complete. However, faithful Catholics may legitimately disagree on different points of view and on how to implement these social teachings.24 One can never disagree on the teachings regarding the right to life of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly.25

9) “When ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’ march up to the altar arm and arm for Communion, should they be denied?”

**Answer: ** Canon 915 states that if they are gravely manifest, obstinate, and persistent in their sins, then they must be denied. The Church condemns the sin of sodomy.26

Sodomites who approach the Eucharist wearing ‘Rainbow sashes’ or are living known lives of perversion are certainly manifest, obstinate and persistent in their grave sin.27 Legal recognition of same-sex unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

There are absolutely no grounds for considering same-sex unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” 28

Next post is last

 

[CatholicforBush]

8) “All I hear is the ‘right to life.’ What about the right to employment, the right to water, the right to food and clothing, the right to protection of the environment?”

Answer: Without the right to life, no other rights are possible.

As men and women of good will we strive to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. There is, however, one right that is “inalienable”, and that is the right to life. This is the first right. This is the right that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that trumps all other issues. 22

Here is this from the Didache circa A.D. 80:23 “You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born.”

The Catholic Church’s social teachings are vast and complete. However, faithful Catholics may legitimately disagree on different points of view and on how to implement these social teachings.24 One can never disagree on the teachings regarding the right to life of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly.25

9) “When ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’ march up to the altar arm and arm for Communion, should they be denied?”

**Answer: **Canon 915 states that if they are gravely manifest, obstinate, and persistent in their sins, then they must be denied. The Church condemns the sin of sodomy.26

Sodomites who approach the Eucharist wearing ‘Rainbow sashes’ or are living known lives of perversion are certainly manifest, obstinate and persistent in their grave sin.27 Legal recognition of same-sex unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

There are absolutely no grounds for considering same-sex unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” 28

Next post is last

 

[CatholicforBush]

I am so sorry about the double post, here is the last
10) “What is Canon Law 915 I hear so much about?”
**Answer: **You may remember that the canon lawyer, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, D.D., J.C.L., on January 8, 2004, promulgated a ‘canonical notification’ in his diocese of La Crosse based on Canon Law 915. In other words, he imposed sacramental disciplines or regulations concerning the unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist. Canon 915 is a sacramental law, not a penal law, and applies only to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not other Sacraments. It is not an excommunication or interdict.

Canon Law is the Church’s Sacred Discipline and is binding on all Catholics, not just politicians, who reject Church law.

There are, however, other legislative powers that the Pope and diocesan Bishops possess which gives them the right to enact laws for their dioceses, including penal laws which impose lataæ sententiæ (‘automatically without sentence’) penalties (c.1311, c.1315, c.1318, c.1369, c.1398). Here we discuss only c.915.

When the diocesan bishops ignore enforcing Canon Law, they are giving license to all manifest sinners to commit Eucharistic sacrilege and cause grave scandal to the faithful.29

Endnotes:

1. 
   *]The Catechism of Catholic Church, §1755.
   *]Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, §73.
   *]Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, §73.
   *]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, n.10.
   *]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, Ch.1, §6.
   *]Pontifical Council for the Family, Charter of the Rights of the Family, n.43.
   *]Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, §37.
   *]Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, §67; Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, §72-73.
   *]Cf.Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae,’ §73.
   *]According to Chuck Wilson, St. Joseph Foundation, the Apostolic Constitution Familiaris consortio (1981), the Letter Annus internationalis familiæ (1994), Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003) and Redemptionis sacramentum (2004), include for the most part those in irregular marriage situations.
   *]Summa Theologica, Pt.III, Q.80, Art 6.
   *]Cf. Catholic World Report, 1/04, “The Mantra of the Wall of Separation” by Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq., Pres. ‘Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.’
   *]Archbishop Raymond Burke interview, EWTN, 1/16/04, with Raymond Arroyo
   *]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life,’ n. 4; Pope JP II, Evangelium vitae, §73.
   *]Code of Canon Law Annotated, University of Navarre, Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, Montreal, 1993.
   *]Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, §18-20.
   *]The Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1782.
   *]Gaudium et spes, n.16; An Introduction to Moral Theology, Dr. Wm. E. May, pp.58.
   *]US Bishops, 1998, Living the Gospel of Life, n.31-34.
   *]Cf. Romans 2:6; 14:12; Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae §74.
   *]Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, §27, 56; The Catholic Dossier, 9/98, “Opposition to the Death Penalty,” Dr. Ralph McInerny;
   *]Bishop Michael J. Sheridan, Colorado Springs, 5/1/04 Pastoral Letter, “duties of Catholic Politicians and voters.”
   *]The epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, A.D. 80; The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2271, n.1,
   *]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life,’ n.6; Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, §59, Pope Paul VI Apostolicam Actuositatem, §4.
   *]Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, §73.
   *]The Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2357-2359.
   *]Cf. Catholic Medical Assoc., ‘Letter to the Catholic Bishops;’ and ‘Homosexuality and Hope;’ Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Persona humana n.8; Summa Theologica, Vol II, Pt.I-II, Q.94, Art.1-6; Vol IV, Pt.II-II, Q.154, Art. 12; Augustine, Confess. iii, 8;
   *]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding Proposals to be Given Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, §4; Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2357
   *]Congregation for Divine Worship, Redemptionis Sacramentum, §183.
   
   **ACKNOWLEDGEMENT **
   
   Barbara Kralis. “Ten questions regarding the denial of the Eucharist.” Catholic Online (May, 2004).

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Excellent posts Catholic for Bush:thumbsup: God Bless

 

[quaysman]

“Heresy? I didn’t expect a sort of Spanish Inquisition!”

“NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

I love Monty Python.

So does my priest, but this is no laughing matter…

:tsktsk:

I don’t much like the tone of your voice.

 

[coelis]

sbcoral:

This is really crazy. How in the world can these politicians be called “heretics?” They’re not trying to promote some alternate theology; they’re just serving the constituents who elected them.

Why should we focus only on pro-choice politicians? Why doesn’t this group go after every other “Catholic” politician who has done something not in line with Church dogma - maybe someone who got divorced, or has used artificial contraception, or has skipped Mass, or who voted for an unjust war, etc.

I think the motives must be political. Why aren’t they going after moderate Republicans like Guiliani and Schwarzenegger who are Catholic and pro-choice?

 

[coelis]

Here is a memo from the Vatican to Cardinal McCarrick June 2004…
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).
2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. …] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or VOTE for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. …] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would NOT for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. **There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
   **4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
4. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
5. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

 

[katherine2]

**

8) “All I hear is the ‘right to life.’ What about the right to employment, the right to water, the right to food and clothing, the right to protection of the environment?”

Answer: Without the right to life, no other rights are possible.

As men and women of good will we strive to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. There is, however, one right that is “inalienable”, and that is the right to life. This is the first right. This is the right that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that trumps all other issues. 22

This is one of the most intellectually weak claims every put forward. First, we have far too many men and women who are not striving to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. The pretense is that these are easy and universally acknowledged goods. They are not.

Second, ALL rights are inalienable. And human rights are not in conflict nor subject to “trumphing”. Human rights are not a card game.

A true Catholic has only one demand – to support all human rights. Juat as you cannot priortize the lines of the Creed and only affirm the most important.**

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

katherine2:

And those with the responsibility for the suit against Senator Kerry have not seen any reason to try him for heresey. Case closed.

Archbishop O’Malley is still considering the case. He has other, more pressing matters. Cardinal Law left him a huge mess.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Really, this is the arguement put forth by Pope John Paul II. Maybe you should tell him its a weak arguement.

** **
This is one of the most intellectually weak claims every put forward. First, we have far too many men and women who are not striving to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. The pretense is that these are easy and universally acknowledged goods. They are not.

**Second, ALL rights are inalienable. And human rights are not in conflict nor subject to “trumphing”. Human rights are not a card game. **

A true Catholic has only one demand – to support all human rights. Juat as you cannot priortize the lines of the Creed and only affirm the most important.

 

[Fitz]

** **

A true Catholic has only one demand – to support all human rights. Juat as you cannot priortize the lines of the Creed and only affirm the most important.

That is not so. The right to life trumps all. You should realize that it is better to be alive and hungry or alive and looking for a place to live, or alive and looking for work…ask anyone that is alive Katherine!

We, as Catholics, are obliged to help those in need. My church does, I do, do you? Jesus said the poor would always be with us. He knew that no matter how hard we worked at it, that new cases would happen. It is a fluid thing. I know we are advantaged in this country- as all Western countries are. We have to keep up our work with the poor.

 

[CatholicforBush]

** **
This is one of the most intellectually weak claims every put forward. First, we have far too many men and women who are not striving to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. The pretense is that these are easy and universally acknowledged goods. They are not.

**Second, ALL rights are inalienable. And human rights are not in conflict nor subject to “trumphing”. Human rights are not a card game. **

A true Catholic has only one demand – to support all human rights. Juat as you cannot priortize the lines of the Creed and only affirm the most important.

It is so sad that you call yourself a Catholic and then give an opinion about this weak argument without any documentation to back it up. I gave you a list of documentation that was from the Magestrium of our church. It makes me sad for you that you do not see the future of our world and our church through babies, that are not yet born. Think of the possibilities for us as a world with some of those 45 million children. Think of all the Priests, and Nuns that we could have had. Think of the world leaders and scientists, philosophers and teachers. One of those children could have been the one to find the cure for AIDS, Cancer and other illnesses. One of those children could have been the one that found the way out of poverty in our world. Think of the great minds we have lost in those 45 million children.
I would like to know what documentation you have that supports your opinion that these are weak arguments. If you would like to have more information about why abortion is so important to Catholics, please take a look at Priests for Life, a group that has been commissioned by the Vatican to spread the word about why abortion is the most important issue of our church in todays time.

I also would like to suggest another web site that is not a Catholic Web site but one that is very helpful in understanding why you are wrong about this “weak” argument. IT is called blackgenocide.org
May God help you change your mind about the protection of the “least of these”

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

** **
This is one of the most intellectually weak claims every put forward. First, we have far too many men and women who are not striving to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. The pretense is that these are easy and universally acknowledged goods. They are not.

**Second, ALL rights are inalienable. And human rights are not in conflict nor subject to “trumphing”. Human rights are not a card game. **

A true Catholic has only one demand – to support all human rights. Juat as you cannot priortize the lines of the Creed and only affirm the most important.

Katherine,that is just crazy.IF YOU HAVE BEEN KILLED NO SOCIAL JUSTICE WILL DO YOU ANY GOOD!:nope: Abortion trumps all these issues without life nothing matters,I will repeat one more time if you are dead all other rights are null and void

 

[buffalo]

Lisa4Catholics:

Katherine,that is just crazy.IF YOU HAVE BEEN KILLED NO SOCIAL JUSTICE WILL DO YOU ANY GOOD!:nope: Abortion trumps all these issues without life nothing matters,I will repeat one more time if you are dead all other rights are null and void

This is what Liberalism brings - From Liberalism is a Sin

As a result, we find amongst the people of this country (excepting well formed Catholics, of course) that authoritative and positive religion has met with utter disaster and that religious beliefs or unbeliefs have come to be mere matters of opinion, wherein there are always essential differences, each one being free to make or unmake his own creed—or accept no creed.

Such is the mainspring of the heresy constantly dinned into our ears, flooding our current literature and our press.** It is against this that we have to be perpetually vigilant, the more so because it insidiously attacks us on the grounds of a false charity and in the name of a false liberty.** Nor does it appeal to us only on the ground of religious toleration.

The principle ramifies in many directions, striking root into our domestic, civil, and political life, whose vigor and health depend upon the nourishing and sustaining power of religion. For religion is the bond which unites us to God, the Source and End of all good; and Infidelity, whether virtual, as in Protestantism, or explicit, as in Agnosticism, severs the bond which binds men to God and seeks to build human society on the foundations of man’s absolute independence. Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:

1. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.

2. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself.

3. Absolute civil sovereignty in the implied right of the people to make their own laws in entire independence and utter disregard of any other criterion than the popular will expressed at the polls and in parliamentary majorities.

4. Absolute freedom of thought in politics, morals, or in religion. The unrestrained liberty of the press.

Such are the radical principles of Liberalism. In the assumption of the absolute sovereignty of the individual, that is, his entire independence of God, we find the common source of all the others. To express them all in one term, they are, in the order of ideas, RATIONALISM, or the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of human reason. Here human reason is made the measure and sum of truth. Hence we have individual, social, and political Rationalism, the corrupt fountainhead of liberalist principles [which are]: absolute freedom of worship, the supremacy of the State, secular education repudiating any connection with religion, marriage sanctioned and legitimatized by the State alone, etc.; in one word, which synthesizes all, we have SECULARIZATION, which denies religion any active intervention in the concerns of public and of private life, whatever they be. This is veritable social atheism.