Religious Liberty Isn't Christian

  • Thread starter Thread starter In_Spiration
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

In_Spiration

Guest
Here’s the presentation by the late Michael Davies. A couple of the papal encyclicals cited are:
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. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.​
What do y’all think? How does this square with the founding principles of America?
 
In_Spiration said:
Here’s the presentation by the late Michael Davies. A couple of the papal encyclicals cited are:
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. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.​
What do y’all think? How does this square with the founding principles of America?
Click to expand...
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I doubt the founding fathers thought any one would dare eject God from the public square.
 
There’s nothing incorrect about what the encyclicals say - in that once God has given you the truth, it would be an affront to not try to carry that truth forward into every aspect of your life.

However, what the framers of the American constitiution realised was that not only was it impossible agree to one religion for entire county, and that God’s people would thrive quite nicely in a framework of liberty, but that it was a good idea to protect the church from the corrupting power of the state.

Not to derail the topic, but sadly, even those protections are being whittled down by the current American president - he’s allowing us to have out religious services in the privacy of our houses of worship, but is not allowing us to bring our faith into public life as we are commanded to do.
 
I think they wanted seperate governing bodies. The Church does not run the government, and the government cannot run the church or decree that every one must belong to a certain religion. This was to protect Churches from being taken over by rulers. NOT TO KICK GOD OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE!
 
In_Spiration said:
What do y’all think? How does this square with the founding principles of America?
Click to expand...
I think humans - which includes Catholics - are inclined to equate wealth and temporal power with righteousness and God.

I think if the United States were poor and communist Russia were - historically - the rich one known as the land of plenty and opportunity, then Catholics (and non-Catholics) would be historically cheering on the righteousness and Godliness of communist Russia. My point is… the separation of church and state thing in the United States appears good so long as the United States remains wealthy and the state (police etc.) have not retreated from large sectors of society. Otherwise, I think Islamic run states or Buddhist run states or a Christian theocracy would seem more “logical” and appealing.

If legalized abortion is so evil as so many conservative people claim… then it begs the question how Godly or Satanic the separation of church and state with it’s democracy in the United States is?
 
I can only say that I will be very glad to be in Heaven, where no human flags fly and no human nations or boundaries or politics or governments exist, where God is the only King.

Also, the quoted portion of the first encyclical in the original post doesn’t seem to be talking about religious liberty. It never said that people in a country shouldn’t be allowed to practice whatever religion they profess, or that Catholicism should be the national official religion. It only seemed to be saying that the state should always order itself towards the eternal aspects of man (which would include things like justice, freedom, charity and free expression of worship), that the state should recognize its authority as God-given (not that the state should be forced by the Church to do so), etc. It never said that the Church should run the state theocratically.
 
Considering that when persecution involves Christians we are on the persecuted end of it I would call it such, and the separation of Church and state protects the Church
 
I would rather listen to a Sainted-Pope than America’s Founding Fathers. I mean, I love the Founding Fathers as much as the next American… but whose ideas have had more staying power? Clearly more Catholics live by the standards of St. Pope Pius X than Americans who live by the standards of the Founding Fathers.
PaulinePresbytr said:
Considering that when persecution involves Christians we are on the persecuted end of it I would call it such, and the separation of Church and state protects the Church
Click to expand...
The Church shouldn’t be motivated by its own self-preservation. If we watered down the gospel, then atheists and secularists wouldn’t persecute us as much. So, why not do that if we are motivated by being safe?

Jesus didn’t call us to be safe. He called us to follow Him, even if we lost everything, even if our families and friends ridiculed us. He called us to follow Him, even if it meant persecution and martyrdom (see 11 out of 12 of the Apostles).

Christianity is radical. Following Christ is dangerous. I’ll end with a quote I heard, “If you’re a Christian and you’re not being persecuted for your faith, then you’re doing something wrong”.
 
In_Spiration said:
Here’s the presentation by the late Michael Davies. A couple of the papal encyclicals cited are:
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. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.​
What do y’all think? How does this square with the founding principles of America?
Click to expand...
I would suggest reading the following: ewtn.com/library/doctrine/rellib.txt
 
In_Spiration said:
Here’s the presentation by the late Michael Davies. A couple of the papal encyclicals cited are:
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. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.​
What do y’all think? How does this square with the founding principles of America?
Click to expand...
The state shouldn’t be separate from the Church, depending upon what is meant. Ideally the state’s official religion is Catholicism. It is the duty of the state to help its citizens in attaining eternal life, something that gets forgotten in an age all about “choice” and a false sense of freedom. Separation of Church and state doesn’t mean religion plays no role in public life. But with that said, separation of Church and state can be a good thing in a state that is not a majority Catholic, or even in a predominantly Catholic state, as long as “separation of Church and state” is properly understood. The meaning that the Church and state should be separated means that the state shouldn’t interfere with the Church (e.g appointing clergy without the Pope), and the Church shouldn’t dictate everything in the state, but should guide it using moral principles. In this sense, separation of Church and state isn’t even against a state religion. I don’t see how religious freedom plays into this.
 
TimeEntrance said:
I think humans - which includes Catholics - are inclined to equate wealth and temporal power with righteousness and God.

I think if the United States were poor and communist Russia were - historically - the rich one known as the land of plenty and opportunity, then Catholics (and non-Catholics) would be historically cheering on the righteousness and Godliness of communist Russia. My point is… the separation of church and state thing in the United States appears good so long as the United States remains wealthy and the state (police etc.) have not retreated from large sectors of society. Otherwise, I think Islamic run states or Buddhist run states or a Christian theocracy would seem more “logical” and appealing.

If legalized abortion is so evil as so many conservative people claim… then it begs the question how Godly or Satanic the separation of church and state with it’s democracy in the United States is?
Click to expand...
You really believe that had Russia been richer, most Catholics in the world would be supporting it? I do not think so. Legalized abortion is evil as Catholics say because it ends life before it has the opportunity to run its proper course; it’s not just most “conservative people” but most Catholics on this forum.
 
In_Spiration said:
Here’s the presentation by the late Michael Davies. A couple of the papal encyclicals cited are:
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. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.​
What do y’all think? How does this square with the founding principles of America?
Click to expand...
Well, the state never accepts absolutely that all religions are morally the same. Those who rule will always act in accordance with a moral code, and they will suppress any faith that is out of accord with it. Until recently the national elite in the United States, which rules the country believed that Christian morality was superior to all others. Now they are moving away from that few. Could be that the Church was be treated again as roughly as it was in 18th century England or as the mormons were in the 19th century.
 
RobbyS said:
Well, the state never accepts absolutely that all religions are morally the same. Those who rule will always act in accordance with a moral code, and they will suppress any faith that is out of accord with it. Until recently the national elite in the United States, which rules the country believed that Christian morality was superior to all others. Now they are moving away from that few. Could be that the Church was be treated again as roughly as it was in 18th century England or as the mormons were in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
The Mormons were treated right gentle all things considered. A cult with assassins on pay role can’t complain if it has a PR problem.
 
As usual, understanding Church teaching on a topic is not as simple as grabbing a few proof texts and reprinting them in bold text. Papal statements must always be understood in the context of the time in which they were made and in harmony with all other church doctrine that came before. Here linked is a fine article on how openness to religious freedom is NOT a new thing invented after the American revolution, but an idea with much older roots in catholic thinking.

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/11/democracy-and-the-gospel-of-christ
 
If it weren’t for separation of Church and state, the United States would have been some type of Protestant state… who knows which particular denomination(s) would have prevailed, maybe some kind of combination. But one thing is clear: the state would have been anti-Catholic this whole time, not just the recent stuff like abortion/the HHS mandate. The whole time.

You think we’re having a discussion of how “terrible” separation of Church and state is then? Doubt it.

And I disagree with you that religious liberty isn’t “Christian.”

Religious liberty is “Christian” in the grandest sense of the word - it imitates the behavior of Christ. Unless you really think Christ would be running around with a machine gun forcing everyone to obey his commands, something he absolutely didn’t do during his time here on Earth. Granted, there were no machine guns then, but you get what I mean. The closest you can come is kicking the money lenders out of the Temple, but that’s about it.
 
The founders knew they didn’t want a theocracy. If they wanted one, they would have made one. Period.

Instead, we have freedom or religion. Thankfully.
 
PropertyDualist said:
The founders knew they didn’t want a theocracy. If they wanted one, they would have made one. Period.

Instead, we have freedom or religion. Thankfully.
Click to expand...
More precisely, the founders knew they didn’t want the state to enforce one specific denomination of protestant christianity (or some vague deistic variant of protestant christianity) on all citizens. Their primary concern was to prevent the government from forcing people to violate their religious beliefs. Somehow that has morphed into the idea that the government must force people to shut up and do what they are told everywhere except actually within the walls of their churches, where they are still free to be as weird as they want. Sad degeneration of a once great national ideal.
 
It depend on what you mean by “religious freedom”. But what the 2nd Vatican council means by it is only that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matter, leaving untouched traditional church teaching, including your quote of St Pius X.
If some people, like bishop Lefebvre, didn’t want to acknowledge this, I think they are wrong, as it is clearly explained in the text provided by the link in post #9.
This text shows clearly too, that catholic doctrine is that the state should have a religion, and that this religion should be the true one, catholicism. And that in the same time should be kept true religious freedom, which means that nobody should be forced to join a religion against his conscience, even catholicism.

The questions are : how can a state be catholic ? How can a state pray for himself and worship God as catholic ? And how can a state, in the same time, fully respect religious freedom of everybody, including freedom of the catholic church ?
 
“The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.” -Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States and Author of the Deceleration of Independence

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” -Jefferson

“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” -Benjamen Franklin

“Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.” -Thomas Paine

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” -John Adams, second president of the United States.

I think its rather A good thing, the U.S.A. was founded with the ideals of the enlightenment and not the ideals of the papacy.
 
Swiss_Guy said:
The state shouldn’t be separate from the Church…But with that said, separation of Church and state can be a good thing in a state that is not a majority Catholic
Click to expand...
So it’s OK if it’s Catholic, but thanks, but no thanks, if it’s not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top