religious freedom

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

The Constitution prohibits " *no law respecting an establishment of religion," * meaning a government sponsored National Church. There is, in effect, a natural separation of Church and State since the State cannot support or endorse any church as a National Church. The United States has never and cannot ever constitutionally have an established national church. Is this contrary to the Syllabus? The republic of France formally divorced itself from the Church “*in the 1905 law providing for the separation of church and state, that is, the separation of religion from political power.” * How is there a difference?

My apologies, I thought you were saying the “separation of Church and state” (quote) was constitutional. I do think that it is contrary to the Syllabus. However, America was founded on anti-American principles (See Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae).

I also think the division of of the Church from France is terrible. She is the eldest daughter of the Church, and as personal opinion, I am all for His Majesty, King Louis XX, rightful king of France.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Timothysis]

I also think the division of of the Church from France is terrible. She is the eldest daughter of the Church, and as personal opinion, I am all for His Majesty, King Louis XX, rightful king of France.

~ Pius :knight1:

The Church’s support of the French right wing (government and aristocracy) in the false accusal and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus had a lot to do with the separation of Church and State act of 1905.

I don’t understand this clamoring for a kingship in the modern world. The Great War was a direct result of the clash between the concept of autocracy and modern industrial nations that led to one of the greatest slaughters that the world has ever seen. The First World War was the event that broke the faith of Europe, all because the kaiser, the tsar and emperor Franz Joseph refused any kind of reform that would improve the lot of their subjects.

 

[severus68]

I’m sorry, at this point I’m just going to be honest and admit that I have no idea where you’re coming from and in what part of the world you function normally with those kinds of views. I don’t mean to be rude or insultive, honestly. But I can’t really relate to someone who has to be explained that people have basic human rights, like the right to choose their religion, and the right not to be offered up as sacrificial lamb in the pit of fire. Sorry, it’s just too out there. I am Roman Catholic and my feelings are that just like I have the right to practice my religion, so does my neighbor. I don’t need an online forum to teach me the golden rule of treating people like I want to be treated. It’s manners 101. And it’s a bit of common sense too.

Enjoy your arguing back and forth. No offense, I have better things to do with my time

Well said. It would appear that some Catholics want to treat people of other faiths the way some Muslims today treat Christians and other non Muslims. Christianity and Christ is not about fanaticism and hatred.

 

[Timothysis]

That statement is not correct. The idea of separation of Church and State is condemned, period. The reason is because the State has a moral duty to profess the true religion.

As I said before, this is true in a Catholic state. For the same reason that the code of Canon Law does not apply to non Catholics, the syllabus does not apply to non Catholic states.

In the same way, it is not likely that Americans would tolerate the forbidding of divorce and remarriage, but that does not make it right either. Unfortunately, America is a Masonic State, but we can always hold out hope that in the future it will be a truly Catholic State and recognize Jesus Christ as the King.

You can civilly forbid divorce and remarriage but do you honestly think that people who wanted out of a marriage wouldn’t just leave? Do you think the state should force couples to stay together? I certainly hope that America doesn’t become a Catholic state in my day. The current powers that be can’t even manage the government; how do you expect them to run the Church, too?

The Syllabus contains formally condemned errors, and it is just as binding today as it was when it was written. **If you disagree, please provide the magisterial document that rendered it null. **

Pope Benedict himself is on record as saying that the syllabus doesn’t apply today because of the absence of Catholic states.

Just because many people have embraced the errors today, does not mean the errors became true.

It isn’t that errors have become true, they just aren’t applicable anymore regardless of how much you want them to.

 

[NeelyAnn]

NeelyAnn:

That is not correct. The idea of separation of Church and State is condemned, period. The reason is because the State has a moral duty to profess the true religion

Timothysis:

As I said before, this is true in a Catholic state. For the same reason that the code of Canon Law does not apply to non Catholics, the syllabus does not apply to non Catholic states.

When you speak of Canon law and separation of Church and State, you are mixing apples and oranges.

The reason is, Canon Law only applies to those who are under the jurisdiction and authority of the Church – namely, the baptized.

When speaking of the separation of Church and State, the duty of the State to profess the true religion is not due to the jurisdiction of the Church, **but rather the dominion of Almighty God **– which includes, not only every individual person without exception, nor every individual family without exception, but also every single State without exception.

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas: “It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. …

Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: ‘His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.’ Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. …What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord? ** If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty** of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. ‘With God and Jesus Christ," we said, "excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation’. When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.” (Quas Primas)

Since all individuals, families, and States are under the dominion of Christ, all, without exception, have the duty to submit to Christ. Separation of Church and State nullifies the State’s duty to profess the religion of Jesus Christ, and therefore implicitly rejects the Kingship of Jesus Christ over the entire human race.

So the teaching of the Syllabus with respect to separation of Church and State applies even to non-Catholic States, since they too are under the dominion of Christ.

Let me end with on final quote. This is from Vehementer Nos of Pope Pius X:

Pope Pius X, Vehementer Nos: “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him".

That is true for every State without exception, which, of course, is why the contrary error was formally condemned. It was condemned because it was an error. And just to be clear, let’s take a look at the condemned proposition.

Syllabus #55. [It is an error to believe that] The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

Notice that the word Catholic is nowhere to be found. Why? Because all States are under the dominion of Christ, and therefore all have a duty to profess the religion established by Him.

 

[Timothysis]

When speaking of the separation of Church and State, the duty of the Church to profess the true religion is not due to the jurisdiction of the Church, **but rather the dominion of Almighty God **– which includes, not only every individual person without exception, nor every individual family without exception, but also every single State without exception.
.

So would you say that being a patriotic citizen of one’s country, be it the republic of American, France or Spain amounts to being in a state of sin since it would be subversive to your notion that all countries should be Catholic states?

 

[Tears_of_Assisi]

We are not free to reject the teaching contained in that enyclical.

I would have to agree here.

 

[NeelyAnn]

So would you say that being a patriotic citizen of one’s country, be it the republic of American, France or Spain amounts to being in a state of sin since it would be subversive to your notion that all countries should be Catholic states?

Before I reply, I just wanted to say that my original post had some typos that were later corrected. For example, in the part you quoted in your posts, I mistakenly wrote “Church” instead of State. It was later corrected in the original.

Now, regarding you question, I am glad you asked. I thought about addressing this last night when some people involved in this discussion seemed a bit shocked to learn what the Church actually teaches on these points.

Most of us on CAF probably live in America, which is not a Catholic country. It was on the way to becoming a Catholic Country when the Spaniards Missionaries were converting the Indians (many of whom had been primed for the Gospel by some very miraculous happenings, but that is for another thread), but when the Founding Fathers came along, they established it as a non Catholic Country, and it has remained that way ever since.

But the question is: Can a Catholic living in America support his country, when the country lacks a good that it should possess? The answer is yes. We can support our country, but we must also acknowledge that the ideal situation is for American to one day become a truly Catholic Country, through some kind of Constitutional Amendment.

Also notice both what the Syllabus says, and also what it does not say. It does not say it is “absolutely forbidden” for the State to be separated from the Church. It merely condemns the proposition that the State “ought to be” separated from the Church, because, as has been shown, the State, no less than an individual, has a duty to embrace Jesus Christ and the religion He founded.

For an American to be faithful to what the Church teaches, all he needs to affirm is that our Country “ought to be” united to the Catholic Church. We can and should love our Country, but love of Country does not mean we have to affirm that no improvement is possible. I love my Country, and at the same time wish it professed the true religion of Jesus Christ.

 

[Tears_of_Assisi]

THE DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY OF
PAPAL ENCYCLICALS

Since the year 1878, when Pope Leo XIII began to rule, as Christ’s vicar on earth, over the Church militant, over one hundred fifty encyclical letters have been issued by the Sovereign Pontiffs. These encyclical letters have exercised an incalculably powerful influence in the direction of Catholic teaching and of Catholic life. Appearing as they have, at an average rate of one in a little less than six months, these documents have come to be recognized as the most frequently used vehicles of the Holy Father’s ordinary teaching of the flock entrusted to his care.

Despite their manifest and unique importance, however, the papal encyclicals have never been given anything like a completely adequate treatment in the literature of sacred theology. Some of the text-books used in our seminaries today give no special consideration whatever to the doctrinal authority of these documents. Others content themselves with a sweeping over-simplification and blithely dismiss all the encyclicals as “non-infallible” pontifical statements. A third group of authors, more scientific in their approach to this problem, maintain that these documents contain some infallibly true teachings, doctrines presented as infallible on the authority of the encyclicals themselves. Even within this last-mentioned group, however, we find most frequently little detailed explanation of the various norms by which we can recognize infallibly authoritative statements of the Holy Father’s ordinary magisterium in his encyclical letters.

Despite the comparative inadequacy of the treatment they give to the papal encyclicals, however, all the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these documents with a true internal religious assent…

more here

 

[Timothysis]

But the question is: Can a Catholic living in America support his country, when the country lacks a good that it should possess? The answer is yes. We can support our country, but we must also acknowledge that the ideal situation is for American to one day become a truly Catholic Country, through some kind of Constitutional Amendment.

This is nonsense. America cannot, constitutionally, become a nation with a religious-based government, nor should it. Why should the minority of Catholics in America be able to establish their form of government over the majority of non Catholics? How long do you think it would be before the Catholic government were overthrown?

How would a Catholic America even function? Of course, you would have to shut down the internet. You would have to abolish a free press and free speech. You cannot allow anything that could become subversive against the state. Also, you would have to create a secret police force to root out those who are not in line with Catholic teachings. How much religious toleration are you willing to allow? Will you allow non Catholics to serve in government? Study the state of Russia under the Tsar or Germany under the Kaiser to see the problems that arise from clash between autocracy and the modern world. Would you like to see America in the same condition as Spain under Francisco Franco? Being pro Catholic sure didn’t stop him from murdering. Tyranny, whether from the left or the right, is still tyranny.

 

[Rence]

This is nonsense. America cannot, constitutionally, become a nation with a religious-based government, nor should it. Why should the minority of Catholics in America be able to establish their form of government over the majority of non Catholics? How long do you think it would be before the Catholic government were overthrown?

How would a Catholic America even function? Of course, you would have to shut down the internet. You would have to abolish a free press and free speech. You cannot allow anything that could become subversive against the state. Also, you would have to create a secret police force to root out those who are not in line with Catholic teachings. How much religious toleration are you willing to allow? Will you allow non Catholics to serve in government? Study the state of Russia under the Tsar or Germany under the Kaiser to see the problems that arise from clash between autocracy and the modern world. Would you like to see America in the same condition as Spain under Francisco Franco? Being pro Catholic sure didn’t stop him from murdering. Tyranny, whether from the left or the Tright, is still tyranny.

God Bless America!!! I love this country so much!!! :grouphug:

 

[Timothysis]

God Bless America!!! I love this country so much!!! :grouphug:

 

[Timothysis]

Most of us on CAF probably live in America, which is not a Catholic country. It was on the way to becoming a Catholic Country when the Spaniards Missionaries were converting the Indians (many of whom had been primed for the Gospel by some very miraculous happenings, but that is for another thread), but when the Founding Fathers came along, they established it as a non Catholic Country, and it has remained that way ever since.

BTW, my people were already here in Louisiana with the Catholic faith before the founding fathers even thought of establishing a country. Many of the founders were anti-Catholic but George Washington was not and even made sure that Catholics served in the government.

 

[NeelyAnn]

This is nonsense. America cannot, constitutionally, become a nation with a religious-based government, nor should it. Why should the minority of Catholics in America be able to establish their form of government over the majority of non Catholics? How long do you think it would be before the Catholic government were overthrown?

Timothysis,

I have to say that I am very surprised at your reply. In all honesty, I thought, based on the magisterial quotes I provided, as well as the very reasonable explanation, that you would admit that American “should be” a Catholic Country. How can you not admit that?

I also wanted to make a distinction here. The distinction is between principle and practice. In your reply to me, you answered on the level of practice. In other words, you asked how it is possible for American to be a Catholic country, since…. and then listed a number of circumstances that would make it difficult, if not impossible. I agree that at this time, there is no way American can be a Catholic country. It is simply not possible in the current circumstances.

But the principle remains true, even when the circumstances hinder it from becoming a reality. We can use the example I gave earlier with divorce and re-marriage. Obviously, it is not good for American to permit this, since God Himself does not permit it. Nevertheless, in the current circumstances there is no way for it to be outlawed. But that does not mean it “should be” outlawed. In other words, it is an evil that is being tolerated due to the circumstances.

It is the same with separation of Church and State. As the quotes I provided showed, every single county, including America, has a duty to acknowledge Christ as King, profess His religion, and submit to His teaches, which are made known through the Church. I have shown this by quoting several encyclicals and magisterial statements, and there are MANY more I could provide saying the same.

Now I want to end with one final point to show how America could (and I believe it actually will) become a Catholic Country.

If you read Catholic prophecies from Saints and approved apparitions, they all agree on what is about to take place. We are near the end of the 5th Age of the Church, which culminates in a temporal chastisement (which may have already begun), which follows a spiritual chastisement (which we have been enduring for the past 50 years). This is then followed by an incredible, and almost unimaginable restoration of all things in Christ. The restoration will be worldwide, with virtually everyone converting to the true faith. When this happens, there is no doubt in my mind that America will be a Catholic country.

But let me just end by saying that I have provided a lot of magisterial quotes to support what I’ve written in this thread. I didn’t make anything up. All that I wrote came from what the Church teaches. We have to accept all that the Church teaches, without exception, even when those teachings come as a shock at first. We live in evil times when Liberalism has triumphed. Therefore, some teachings will be a shock to us, especially if we don’t fully understand them. Rather than rejecting these teachings, look into them. They all make perfect sense when you understand them.

 

[NeelyAnn]

"Neelyann:

Most of us on CAF probably live in America, which is not a Catholic country. It was on the way to becoming a Catholic Country when the Spaniards Missionaries were converting the Indians (many of whom had been primed for the Gospel by some very miraculous happenings, but that is for another thread), but when the Founding Fathers came along, they established it as a non Catholic Country, and it has remained that way ever since.

BTW, my people were already here in Louisiana with the Catholic faith before the founding fathers even thought of establishing a country. …

What you wrote agreed with what I write. The Spanish missionaries arrived before the Founding Fathers. They were making great progress in converting the Indians to the Catholic Faith. Although some of the Indians resisted and killed the missionaries, others were primed for the Gospel through miraculous means.

Mary of Agreda, for example, bi-located to the area now know as east Texas and catechised the Indians. When the missionaries arrived, the Indians already knew the faith and begged to be baptized. There are many similar stories of how God was preparing our Country for the faith.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

What you wrote agreed with what I write. The Spanish missionaries arrived before the Founding Fathers. They were making great progress in converting the Indians to the Catholic Faith. Although some of the Indians resisted and killed the missionaries, others were primed for the Gospel through miraculous means.

Mary of Agreda, for example, bi-located to the area now know as east Texas and catechised the Indians. When the missionaries arrived, the Indians already knew the faith and begged to be baptized. There are many similar stories of how God was preparing our Country for the faith.

I think you overlook the fact that anti-Catholicism arrived in what became the US in 1620 with the arrival of the “Pilgrims” and the growth of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and its Catholic-hating, “witch”-burning inhabitants the Puritans. It slays me every Thanksgiving when our children are taught the story of the “Pilgrims” and their alleged desire for “freedom to worship,” when what is left unsaid is that it was freedom to worship – their way only.

These influences, which shaped most of the original 13 states (Rhode Island and Maryland excepted) far more than what may have been going on in what became Texas or Louisiana, would seem to have had a more direct effect on the roots of the approach to religious freedom in the early USA. There’s a reason that anti-Catholicism remains the “last acceptable prejudice.”

 

[NeelyAnn]

I think you overlook the fact that anti-Catholicism arrived in what became the US in 1620 with the arrival of the “Pilgrims” and the growth of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and its Catholic-hating, “witch”-burning inhabitants the Puritans. It slays me every Thanksgiving when our children are taught the story of the “Pilgrims” and their alleged desire for “freedom to worship,” when what is left unsaid is that it was freedom to worship – their way only.

These influences, which shaped most of the original 13 states (Rhode Island and Maryland excepted) far more than what may have been going on in what became Texas or Louisiana, would seem to have had a more direct effect on the roots of the approach to religious freedom in the early USA. There’s a reason that anti-Catholicism remains the “last acceptable prejudice.”

Yes, I am familiar with this. The Spanish missionaries came to America first, in order tospread Catholicism and save souls. The “Pilgims” and founding Fathers, on the other hand, were heretics and Freemasons who, for the most part, hated Catholicism. We’ve been led to believe that these Founding Fathers were sent by God. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Timothysis]

All that I wrote came from what the Church teaches.

Can you show me where the Church teaches the following;

If you read Catholic prophecies from Saints and approved apparitions, they all agree on what is about to take place. We are near the end of the 5th Age of the Church, which culminates in a temporal chastisement (which may have already begun), which follows a spiritual chastisement (which we have been enduring for the past 50 years). This is then followed by an incredible, and almost unimaginable restoration of all things in Christ. The restoration will be worldwide, with virtually everyone converting to the true faith. When this happens, there is no doubt in my mind that America will be a Catholic country…

 

[NeelyAnn]

Can you show me where the Church teaches the following;

I meant what I wrote about religious liberty and separation of Church and State. The part you quoted is from private revelations which you are certainly free to reject.

 

[Warrenton]

People are free to believe in what they want. You are free to worship stones as long as you don’t throw them on me or on others

This quote more than many others crystalizes the debate.

Flyying is right, but only part right.

People are also free to create a society of their choosing. This is the highest form of free expression.

Thus, Catholics were, and are, free to create a Catholic society. Once they achieve this, as once they did all over Europe, they are justified in protecting it. This is no different from any other society. Our democracy claims the right to kill Islamists who would impose non-democratic values upon it, and moreover, it acts on that claim of right.

Traditionalist Catholics maintain the right to create, or recreate, a Catholic society. Once created, they deny that non-Catholics have the right to de-Catholocise it. They maintain the right to defend it Catholic nature, even by force if need arise. Non Catholics have two rights vis a vis the Catholic society’s structural life: they can join, or they can leave.

It is interesting to note that this grants one more right than modern governments tend to grant.