religious freedom

[guestseeking]

Exactly.

i used to many words you said it in a more wise way. catholic means one church following christ. i have salvation, but i do not have fellowship. if a catholic will not show me what they believe and let me know where i am wrong, how can i discern if i should become catholic? by the words of athiests? or of muslims? thank you for telling the truth now anyone who has knowledge about what i have to aggree with honestly about the catholic church and teachings please leave me some messages letting me know how much i need to aggree with, i would like to know if the catholic Church will be my place of worship besides my home. thank you.

 

[NeelyAnn]

i used to many words you said it in a more wise way. catholic means one church following christ. i have salvation, but i do not have fellowship. if a catholic will not show me what they believe and let me know where i am wrong, how can i discern if i should become catholic? by the words of athiests? or of muslims? thank you for telling the truth now anyone who has knowledge about what i have to aggree with honestly about the catholic church and teachings please leave me some messages letting me know how much i need to aggree with, i would like to know if the catholic Church will be my place of worship besides my home. thank you.

I can tell that you are sincere, and I will be praying for you. I am also going to provide you with what you are looking for. The following is a link to one of my favorite Catechisms. It is set up in a question and answer format. It is easy to understand, and at the same time provides a depth of information about what the Church teaches.

Here is a link to The Catechism of Pope Pius X

Here is another link to the same Catechism. You might find this version is easier to nativate.

 

[Dan_Daly]

American is a state with a Constitution that forbids a state Church genius!

Have you also noticed that the vast majority of our founding fathers were quakers, dethiests, agnostics, unitarians, and Anglicans?

I oppose your efforts to do this. Religious freedom is supported by the Church and Vatican two… Can the Catholic faith being a moral guide to the secular America on issues such as abortion and marriage? Yes… But it is not your place to say that Catholics must convert the “pagans” i.e. Every other world religion. they all have a right to exist, practice their faith unhampered.

Should we be allowed to convert people? Yes… But should they be allowed to convert catholics? Yes… We scream religious intolerance every darn time someone criticizes the Church… But according to your views only Catholicism should be allowed in the end.

I will not let people like you destroy the Church and everything it stands for! In the spirit of Vatican II you need to stop with these outrageous statements! I will pray for you!

Thanks for your comments.

There are many good things about the US Constitution, but it does not trump God.

So are you arguing, that if everyone in the US was Catholic…it would still be wrong to revise the laws (including the Constitution) to make Catholicism the official state Church?

Not all faiths are equal. Some have some truth, some have a lot of truth, ONE has all the truth- the Catholic Church.

In the End, there will indeed be only Catholics, not because I say so, but simply because that is how it will be. When God calls every person who has ever lived before Him on the day of the Last Judgement, those who go to Heaven will be faithful Catholics and those who go to Hell will have rejected the Catholic faith, but they will at least see what it is.

What use is freedom in this life if it is used to promote eternal damnation in the next life?

Reread what I wrote that you replied to please. I didn’t say anyone should be forced to convert by anyone. I said Catholics should work towards everyone being Catholic.

Pax and God bless.

 

[severus68]

If someone wants to become an apostate and separate from the Church there should be no penalty other than that person risking their soul in the end… That’s between them and God…

The inquisition ended several hundred years ago for people like that…

Human rights law states freedom of religion is essential.

If someone wants to join the Church they should be welcomed.

If someone wants to leave we cannot stop them no matter how much we disagree with them.

In the end on a positive note many who leave the Church as apostates find their way back on their own!

It’s between a believer and God and that’s the way it should remain.

Exactly. Well said. What is proposed by some here is what many Muslims practice when they control the government. However, we have the example of Indonesia, the country with the largest number of Muslims. They have chosen to be a secular state and not an Islamic state.

 

[severus68]

I can tell that you are sincere, and I will be praying for you. I am also going to provide you with what you are looking for. The following is a link to one of my favorite Catechisms. It is set up in a question and answer format. It is easy to understand, and at the same time provides a depth of information about what the Church teaches.

Here is a link to The Catechism of Pope Pius X

Here is another link to the same Catechism. You might find this version is easier to nativate.

You should be honest. The cathechism today is the 1992 Cathechism. It is fine to push your own views, it not right to mislead.

 

[divinefaith]

If someone wants to become an apostate and separate from the Church there should be no penalty other than that person risking their soul in the end… That’s between them and God…

The inquisition ended several hundred years ago for people like that…

Human rights law states freedom of religion is essential.

If someone wants to join the Church they should be welcomed.

If someone wants to leave we cannot stop them no matter how much we disagree with them.

In the end on a positive note many who leave the Church as apostates find their way back on their own!

It’s between a believer and God and that’s the way it should remain.

thats why I support a secular government.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Exactly. Well said. What is proposed by some here is what many Muslims practice when they control the government. However, we have the example of Indonesia, the country with the largest number of Muslims. They have chosen to be a secular state and not an Islamic state.

There are few points to make:

1. There is a difference between Mohammadenism and Catholicism. One is a heresy there other is the True Faith.
2. Nobody here is talking about trying to force conversion. For one thing it’s impossible. Even God doesn’t force us to believe. We are talking about seek the coversion of all people. Do you agree that a Catholic should want EVERYONE to be Catholic?
3. There is nothing magical about secular states. They can be just as harsh and abusive as any theocracy. Actually, the most tyrannical states in recent memory have been secular states- the Soviet Union, Red China, etc.

Pax and God bless.

 

[divinefaith]

There are few points to make:

1. There is a difference between Mohammadenism and Catholicism. One is a heresy there other is the True Faith.
2. Nobody here is talking about trying to force conversion. For one thing it’s impossible. Even God doesn’t force us to believe. We are talking about seek the coversion of all people. Do you agree that a Catholic should want EVERYONE to be Catholic?
3. There is nothing magical about secular states. They can be just as harsh and abusive as any theocracy. Actually, the most tyrannical states in recent memory have been secular states- the Soviet Union, Red China, etc.

Pax and God bless.

The same way we call our faith true, Muslims would too. We have to be fair.
We wouldnt physically persecute non Catholics but holding power against those who dont believe in our views is also bad.

As for a secular state, how about a charitable state that wont torture their citizens in any political way and allows their citizens to hold any religion they want.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The same way we call our faith true, Muslims would too. We have to be fair.
We wouldnt physically persecute non Catholics but holding power against those who dont believe in our views is also bad.

As for a secular state, how about a charitable state that wont torture their citizens in any political way and allows their citizens to hold any religion they want.

Yes, but our faith IS the one true faith. If you don’t believe that, why be Catholic?

As far as allowing any religion…some religions do all sorts of things, including human sacrifice.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a non-religious state. Every state selects some sort of values to govern by. This includes the current United States. There is no magically morally neutral form of government.

Pax and God bless.

 

[divinefaith]

Yes, but our faith IS the one true faith. If you don’t believe that, why be Catholic?

As far as allowing any religion…some religions do all sorts of things, including human sacrifice.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a non-religious state. Every state selects some sort of values to govern by. This includes the current United States. There is no magically morally neutral form of government.

Pax and God bless.

Yes Catholocism is the true faith but we have to consider other people’s beliefs too. In running a state we still have to apply the natural law of not murdering nor harming the rights of others.

 

[severus68]

There are few points to make:

1. There is a difference between Mohammadenism and Catholicism. One is a heresy there other is the True Faith.
2. Nobody here is talking about trying to force conversion. For one thing it’s impossible. Even God doesn’t force us to believe. We are talking about seek the coversion of all people. Do you agree that a Catholic should want EVERYONE to be Catholic?
3. There is nothing magical about secular states. They can be just as harsh and abusive as any theocracy. Actually, the most tyrannical states in recent memory have been secular states- the Soviet Union, Red China, etc.

Pax and God bless.

1. Never said Christianity and Islam are the same. I was I thought making the clear point that even some Muslims think it is best to seperate religion and state.
2. I would love everyone to be Catholic. It does not mean that I think every non Catholic is evil and will go to hell.
3. Religious states can be as bad. See some Islamic states. See what happened when the Church had political power with the Inquisition. The problem is that people run every religion. Even in a Catholic state, the ones with less of a conscience will do anything to gain more and more power. As it is said “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

 

[severus68]

Yes, but our faith IS the one true faith. If you don’t believe that, why be Catholic?

As far as allowing any religion…some religions do all sorts of things, including human sacrifice.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a non-religious state. Every state selects some sort of values to govern by. This includes the current United States. There is no magically morally neutral form of government.

Pax and God bless.

Which religions today practice human sarifice? All states should have a univeral set of values with no ultimate power given to any one religion. I believe this because I am Christian/Catholic.

 

[divinefaith]

no ultimate power given to any one religion. I believe this because I am Christian/Catholic.

Therefore less discrimantion

 

[Warrenton]

If someone wants to become an apostate and separate from the Church there should be no penalty other than that person risking their soul in the end… That’s between them and God…

We are not talking about someone leaving the Church. We are talking about other people actively trying to break the faithful away from the Church.

Human rights law states freedom of religion is essential.

Not exactly. The Church says that the freedom of people to arrive at the truth and participate in the life of the corporate body of Christ is essential. Human rights law, in contrast, says that religion can be restricted to the degree that it infringes on general civil liberty, provided it is done in a “limited” manner. What constitutes “limited” varies from place to place. Even Saudi Arabia claims to recognize the “freedom” of religion.

If someone wants to join the Church they should be welcomed.

Naturally.

If someone wants to leave we cannot stop them no matter how much we disagree with them.

This is not necessarilly so. Consider the case of a soldier who won’t fight.

In the end on a positive note many who leave the Church as apostates find their way back on their own!

One likes to think. However, the history of the Reformation, schism, and contemporary Latin America speaks to a different result.

It’s between a believer and God and that’s the way it should remain.

Genesis 4:9.

 

[Warrenton]

Which religions today practice human sarifice?

Humanism and nationalism, to name but several.

 

[Rence]

What is lost on many people is that even though one might live in a religiously pluralistic society (like the United States), we should all be working, hoping, and praying that our state becomes a Catholic state. Not because we want to coerce or force anyone into the faith, but because we want to convert everyone. Why? Because there is no salvation outside of the Church and God instructed us to go forth, evangelize, and convert people.

I can tell you that I am not working, hoping and praying that our country becomes a Catholic State because that would mean I would have to move. Catholic run (and influenced) governments have failed horribly in the past and victimized anyone who didn’t want anything to do with the Church. It has nothing to do with evangelizing and coverting people. Because our nation supports all citizens’ right to choose and practice their own faith, it doesn’t matter if there are 100 or 1 million Catholics here, we can still practice our faith. It would be great if all of our citizens were Catholic…but that has nothing to do with the way the country is governed.

Can we be loving and kind towards Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, etc?

Yes, absolutely, and we must be. Sometimes being loving means telling people that they are wrong and speaking hard truths to them.

And you can do so…but they are still free to reject your loving words and continue to practice the religion of their choice, just like we are. They are as dedicated to their religion as we are, and have the right to practice their religion, like we do.

While we love them, we should not simply accept that our society has many faiths and leave it at that. We must desire all people to be united in the Catholic Church.

Then don’t complain when others don’t want anything to do with the Church, and don’t want a Catholic President who doesn’t vow to represent all citizens without regard to Church rules (Kennedy is the only Catholic President to date, and made this promise) , and don’t want Catholic influences because they value their religion as much as Catholics do and they want to be treated with the same consideration that Catholics do. Some Catholics “fear” for their religious rights (which really means they want others to not break rules of the Church), but with sentiments that encourage not accepting other religions, they really have no room to talk. People fear having their rights taken away, and they will not let theocracies do it. That’s why we’re here and not in places like muslim-governed nations. The last thing the world needs is another country that bases their laws on Catholic laws, which we had during the Inquisitions.

 

[Rence]

So are you arguing, that if everyone in the US was Catholic…it would still be wrong to revise the laws (including the Constitution) to make Catholicism the official state Church?

Yes.

 

[Rence]

We are not talking about someone leaving the Church. We are talking about other people actively trying to break the faithful away from the Church.

You mean like when there were Catholic states, for example, England or Spain? and Protestants grew more powerful with each act of atrocity against a protestant for not adhering to Catholic teachings? People have the right to leave the Church, for whatever reason. It’s their choice. A person who is strong in their faith (no matter what religion) can’t leave even if others are trying to actively evangelize them. People can’t actively break the faithful away from the Church…it’s the choice of the faithful to make that decision.

 

[Disinherited]

John Salza said that the Church meant that though nobody has a right to practice a false religion as it is something bad, thy still have the freedom to. Theres a difference between right and freedom. A right gives you a claim to something and is God given while freedom just lets you do things. For example, if I had a right to eat cookies, I expect my mum to give them to me everyday but I don’t have a god given right to remove my hunger by such a means. I have the freedom to steal them from a jar, yes, but it doesn’t mean I expect people to give them to me.

As for religious freedom, Judaism was legal under Pope Pius IX in the Papal States and to my knowledge, they could build synagogues in the ghettos. Protestantism could be held in public although it was allowed privately.

So Pius IX, speaking with the authority of a Pope was right: nobody has the right to practice whatever false religion they have. They have the freedom to practice it and it can be tolerated without sin just as religion was tolerated in Poland and Judaism under the Popes in their lands.

Rence, while I agree with alot that you said, I disagree with Catholic governments failing. In what ways did they fail? The economy? Religious freedom? Remember, though the Church didn’t always let public worship of other religions, it never forced anyone to convert and in fact condemned forced conversion. Hell, do you think the Inquisition was as bad as people pretend it is? It wasn’t allowed to touch those who publicly lived as Jews and Protestants, only those who who were Catholic. Of the thousands and thousands of Jews who were forced to convert, together with all the bigamists, heretics and blasphemers, only 5000 were burned in the Spanish Inquisition. 1000 in the Roman one.

Also, as David Goldstein said, the Inquisition is no more guilty of murder as a jury is when a convict is sent to the electric chair, as the executions were carried out by the state. The Inquisitors were judges and when they handed sentences, they handed sentences of penance, and it did so rightly and justly. If you want to be Catholic, you can’t believe in another religion or believe heretical doctrines without the Church condemning you.

That said, even IF a country today were to become a theocracy, lack of freedom of religion wouldn’t work, as the economy would fall and there would be pressure form other places. We don’t even NEED a theocracy or a political position. If countries were allied to the Church that’d be a very good thing and if they removed their evil laws such as toleration of homosexuality and abortion that’d be even more good. But religious TOLERANCE, not acceptance isn’t against Church teaching. Hell, we don’t need a political position as I said. In fact, America on the inside did well until abortion was legalized and its freedom of speech gives Catholics not only rights they wouldn’t have found in Protestant and Muslim theocracies., it makes converting souls more truimphant because of the opposition you’d experience.

 

[Warrenton]

You mean like when there were Catholic states, for example, England or Spain? and Protestants grew more powerful with each act of atrocity against a protestant for not adhering to Catholic teachings? People have the right to leave the Church, for whatever reason. It’s their choice. A person who is strong in their faith (no matter what religion) can’t leave even if others are trying to actively evangelize them. People can’t actively break the faithful away from the Church…it’s the choice of the faithful to make that decision.

The faith was destroyed in England through an assiduous campaign, which commenced with the theft of her property, the imprisonment and execution of her most vocal supporters, the ruthless suppression of Catholic loyalists, and the prohibition of her ability to practice publicly the sacraments according to her rites. The Church was the victim.

Unless, of course, you sole understanding of what transpired is taken from Foxe’s Booke of Martyrs.

People do not have the right to leave the Church. They have the ability. I have the ability to commit any crime I please, but I do not have the right.

The Church exists for the strongest as well as the weakest sheep. Your position leads to the conclusion that the weakest sheep should be abandoned to the wolf, in the name of freedom.

A fine freedom, which consigns a soul to eternal bondage.