Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[Lycorth]

Here is an aspect of separation of Church and state that perhaps might be overlooked: the ‘rules of the game,’ perhaps unspoken (at least never spoken in my hearing!!) seem to reduce apostolic work in a state which insists that all religions are equal.

Indeed! Your testimony is sadly the case of modern America - a rudderless civilization adrift without its moral compass. The reduction of the great Catholic Faith to just another “faith-based spirituality” which is no different than any other has trammeled the most powerful moral force in Western civilization’s history. The moral ruins of Western culture are the plain fruits of this separation.

Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemies.

You can say that again; 57 votes thus far in favor of secular government on a Catholic discussion forum where there ought not to be a single one. Atheists needn’t worry that there will ever be a Catholic government in America - most Catholics won’t let it happen

 

[LeftHandOfGod]

The gradual separation of church has lead to many immoral and godless actions. How can you say little good come from a government with religion? Obviously it is not the government’s job to preach or force any religion upon the country, but without religion what is the moral baseline for laws? What would prevent people from passing laws that make killing legal? Abortion.Assisted suicide.The U.S. has falled from it’s true traditions. The very foundation on which this country was made. For religious freedom but not a religious-less government Without God only evil will exist.

 

[Padua_Minded]

Ireland’s troubles have nothing to do with religion. They have almost everything to do with either British interference in Irish affairs or the Irish people’s own inability to truly unite and throw off foreign shackles. The history of the IRA alone testifies to this.

I am from Ireland and I agree with your analysis. The Irish Campaign to Seperate Church and State made a similar point.

And child abuse is neither uniquely Irish nor Catholic. Ireland in fact has one of the lowest child abuse rates in the world (much lower than the UK - where there is less than a 5% conviction rate for paedophiles):

unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard5e.pdf

 

[Padua_Minded]

Some extracts from a Marxist article on this subject

The whole thrust of Lutheranism and Anglicanism was the subjection of the Church to the national government. Calvinism attempted to reverse the process and reassert the independent authority of the Church but everywhere it was defeated…But in subordinating the Church to himself, the King was combining in himself the two roles of secular and spiritual authority. The spiritual authority was not eliminated. It was assumed by the King… It was this that was shaken fundamentally by the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89

The theorist of the Glorious Revolution was John Locke and the most important of John Locke’s thoughts was perhaps the following (from the First Letter on Toleration):

A church, then, I take to be a voluntary society of men, joining together of their own accord, in order to the public worship of God in such a manner as they judge acceptable to him and effectual to the salvation of their souls.

That, the view that religion is a private matter and, consequently, that there is no spiritual authority in society, is at the heart of the Glorious Revolution. This was not immediately obvious. The reign of Queen Ann marked an apparent comeback for the idea of government as a moral authority. But the Anglican hierarchy had already been filled by people who shared Locke’s view of the matter and, with the Hanoverian succession in 1714…

Thus the ‘Whig oligarchy’—the aristocracy which triumphed with the accession of George I - were free to regard government as a matter of purely secular material interest. What did they do with their freedom from the contraints of any moral authority other than that of their own consciences? They set about turning agricultural production into a business enterprise. The Glorious Revolution was followed by the agricultural revolution. No longer restrained by the moral responsibility imposed by the old order, they set about throwing the peasantry off the land and turning themselves into large scale capitalist farmers.

But it was brutal (its most obviously brutal point being the Highland clearances in Scotland - where incidentally, the militant end of the Church of Scotland which opposed the domination of the state sided with the peasants). Huge numbers of people were driven away from their homes at a time when there was no industry to absorb them. The process was resisted in Ireland by agrarian terrorism practised against a weak and insecure upstart aristocracy…

By the end of the 18th Century, British agriculture was established on a sound basis of large scale production capable of feeding the huge populations gathered in the towns (largely as a result of their expulsion from the country) who in turn provided the human material for the rapid expansion of the Industrial Revolution. This was the basis of Britain’s 19th Century prosperity. In the account books of the political economist, the whole thing was a miracle. It was a miracle in which virtually every single human manual ability of any value was systematically destroyed; mankind was reduced to the status of a minder of machines; cheapness and quantity became the only values recognised in society; and the market became (as Hobbes, the great opponent of the authority of the church, had foreseen and desired) the only ground of human association…

The course of events was not the same in France, where the King continued to have absolute authority, including a spiritual and moral authority which was necessarily conservative in tendency—conservative of the existing rights of his subjects and therefore of the status quo. England in the 18th Century was in a state of class war—landlord v. peasant—with all the power in the hands of the landlord. While the same economic forces were at work in France they did not have the same liberty to develop. They came up against moral and spiritual concerns which were personified by the Church but which, it should be said, were not intelligent. The Church, subjected to the King, did not have a mind of its own…

The great work of the French Revolution, as of the English, was finally to do away with the idea of government as a spiritual authority and thereby—as in England—liberate commercial interest as the single overriding authority in the state…

The consequences of the French Revolution, however, were not the same as those of the English Revolution. The latter was effected by the aristocracy who established the principles of industrial production in agriculture and destroyed the peasantry. In France, the Revolution turned against the aristocracy (for no very good reason that I can see). As a result, a greatly weakened aristocracy became identified with reaction. But although the immediate result of the Revolution was that land passed into moneyed hands, this did not bring about the rationalisation of agriculture. The moneyed hands were urban and incompetent in agricultural matters and, as a result, instead of expelling the peasants, they sold to them and in a very short time the peasantry was established as just about the most powerful economic—and political—force in France…

What was specific to the English Revolution of 1688-89 and marked it out as the most successful of revolutions in establishing stable political arrangements to enable economic change was, then, largely that it was achieved by the aristocracy and squirearchy—the existing ruling class. It removed the limits on their freedom of action which had previously been imposed by the King and Church and thus put them in a position of absolute power over the peasantry…And what that meant—a political framework in which the English peasantry could be destroyed, peacefully, was revealed only slowly throughout the century and has now, just as peacefully, been forgotten again since we are all—management and workers—beneficiaries of the crime.

 

[janet_baker76]

We need to make a list of those here who understand how we’ve been hornswoggled about the benefits of secularism & stay in touch in case someone finds a party. Although I have met ‘royalists,’ for want of a better term, who simply accept that everything good is in the past. I am not one of those people. I think secularism is exhausted & the future belongs to the (reformed) (or should that be ‘unreformed’?) Church. I want a future, unless God’s will is otherwise, & who can say that? It’s normal to want an earthly future. It goes so well with children, after all.

There are many people–I think-- who would vote against liberalism as long as an alternative seemed reasonable (about tolerating plural faiths while enforcing a standard, for example). That could be done. We can be reasonable. I have posted here, earlier, what such a platform might look like. What do you other religious staters think? Who wants to friend all of us and keep in touch? Who will look for a party? Or found one? How old are you all? What are your thoughts?

To me, a first step is to pray and do whatever else we can to restore tradition in the Church, via especially the doctrinal talks between SSPX and the Vatican. The repudiation by VII of the confessional state is on the table.

 

[bmadamsberry]

The government has no right to interfere with religion (as far as appointing bishops, telling them what they can and cannot say, etc). And religion should stay out of politics (else you get the problems and persecutions of the Church of England). However, politicians should allow religion to influence their lives (no matter if that religion is Catholicism or Islam, Buddhism or Mormonism). Just like one’s education influences their decisions, so does one’s religion. If a politician wants to pray and open up a meeting with prayer, that’s fine. When the Founding Fathers promoted seperation of Church and State (which they did), they were promoting seperation of the INSTITUTIONS of Church and State.

 

[Colin_LaVergne]

Here is what Pope Benedict said last year on this topic.

The Catholic Church is eager to share the richness of the Gospel’s social message,…She carries out this mission fully aware of the respective autonomy and competence of Church and State. Indeed, we may say that the distinction between religion and politics is a specific achievement of Christianity and one of its fundamental historical and cultural contributions.

The Church is equally convinced that State and religion are called to support each other as they together serve the personal and social well-being of all (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 76). This harmonious cooperation between Church and State requires ecclesial and civic leaders to carry out their public duties with undaunted concern for the common good. By cultivating a spirit of honesty and impartiality, and by keeping justice their aim, civil and ecclesial leaders earn the trust of the people and enhance a sense of the shared responsibility of all citizens to promote a civilization of love. All should be motivated by the desire to serve rather than to gain personally or to benefit a privileged few. Everyone shares in the task of strengthening public institutions so as to safeguard them from the corruption of factionalism and elitism.

 

[sedonaman]

… And religion should stay out of politics (else you get the problems and persecutions of the Church of England).

Did you know that it was religion that got slavery abolished in this country?

When the Founding Fathers promoted seperation of Church and State (which they did), they were promoting seperation of the INSTITUTIONS of Church and State.

Can you find one document that says the Founding Fathers promoted seperation [sic] of Church and State and defines what it means? patriotpost.us/historic/documents/

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Apparently the Pope doesn’t like it.

It is only in the past 100 years or so that we as Catholics have grown comfortable with this separation.

Restore Catholic Monarchs!
Restore the Catholic State.
Save Europe!

 

[allcingi]

I’ve seen a lot of anti-secularism here, so I’m wondering what you folk dislike (or like) about it.

I am for separation, because when Church & State go together, little good comes from it.

I would love nothing more than to see the Church and STATE seperate. Lol I’m a poet and didn’t know it They are joined at the hip. The STATE is a corporation and the Church should be a beacon of light and truth.

 

[EnchantedEve]

We need to make a list of those here who understand how we’ve been hornswoggled about the benefits of secularism & stay in touch in case someone finds a party. Although I have met ‘royalists,’ for want of a better term, who simply accept that everything good is in the past. I am not one of those people. I think secularism is exhausted & the future belongs to the (reformed) (or should that be ‘unreformed’?) Church. I want a future, unless God’s will is otherwise, & who can say that? It’s normal to want an earthly future. It goes so well with children, after all.

There are many people–I think-- who would vote against liberalism as long as an alternative seemed reasonable (about tolerating plural faiths while enforcing a standard, for example). That could be done. We can be reasonable. I have posted here, earlier, what such a platform might look like. What do you other religious staters think? Who wants to friend all of us and keep in touch? Who will look for a party? Or found one? How old are you all? What are your thoughts?

To me, a first step is to pray and do whatever else we can to restore tradition in the Church, via especially the doctrinal talks between SSPX and the Vatican. The repudiation by VII of the confessional state is on the table.

I agree completely!

One of the medieval ideas was of the state and Church as two bodies that have seperate but important functions. The Church and the Empire were not so much united as in harmony. The Church was the supreme spiritual body on earth, under whom all spiritual matters lay, and the Empire was the supreme temporal body. The Church recognized the Holy Roman Emperor as paramount over all rulers, royal and non-royal alike, in the West, and the Empire recognized the Church as the one true one over all others. I believe a return to this system is what we should envision. Not the Erastian “state church” of Scandinavia and the UK. Not the theocratic overlap of Iran and Saudi Arabia. We need to envision the Empire and the Church as two united prinicipals, standing together for the cause of God and the Faith. We all have our individual calling, but we also have our corporal calling. The state can be spiritual without ruling the Spirit, and without being run by priests. A return to sacramental leadership, much as the kings of old were anointed and crowned in sacred vestments, is the key to true liberty. No government can be limited save by the limits of its own purpose, but it must first have a purpose, a vocation. Otherwise, they become the ever engulfing Leviathans of modernity, purposeless monsters seeking desperatly to justify their ever clamoring growth into the abyss. Nature abhors a vacuum. The Spirit must reclaim the state, and establish in it a foundation for our greater calling.

As Rev Tevye stated in “Fiddler on the Roof:” “Because of our traditions, every man knows who he is, and what God expects him to do.” That is what we must expect of the state, and that is the vision we must claim for ourselves. The Church has always taught Catholics better fulfill their vocation in life when their environment nourishes that call. The Catholic state is the sole ideal which we must strive for to accompish this, if we are to know that sense security for our Faith, and those of future generations. Deus Vult! God Wills It!

 

[Lycorth]

Some extracts from a Marxist article on this subject

Thank you for posting that; every single person here on their soapbox about secularism ought to read and re-read that Marxist excerpt. Catholics by the handful are advocating concepts first put forth by Marxists. That ought to give the pro-separation crowd pause.

We need to make a list of those here who understand how we’ve been hornswoggled about the benefits of secularism & stay in touch in case someone finds a party. Although I have met ‘royalists,’ for want of a better term, who simply accept that everything good is in the past. I am not one of those people. I think secularism is exhausted & the future belongs to the (reformed) (or should that be ‘unreformed’?) Church. I want a future, unless God’s will is otherwise, & who can say that? It’s normal to want an earthly future. It goes so well with children, after all.

There are many people–I think-- who would vote against liberalism as long as an alternative seemed reasonable (about tolerating plural faiths while enforcing a standard, for example). That could be done. We can be reasonable. I have posted here, earlier, what such a platform might look like. What do you other religious staters think? Who wants to friend all of us and keep in touch? Who will look for a party? Or found one? How old are you all? What are your thoughts?

To me, a first step is to pray and do whatever else we can to restore tradition in the Church, via especially the doctrinal talks between SSPX and the Vatican. The repudiation by VII of the confessional state is on the table.

Great points; we most certainly can be reasonable - in fact, we are the only reasonable ones. We understand that a moral free-for-all leads to immorality, that in order to best secure the conversion of souls we must convert culture and politics as well, that if we keep God out of public life God will turn away from us, as He in large part has. Western civilization has not become corrupt and profligate for no good reason, and I think a large part of it has to do with our addiction to secularism. God will not bless America, no matter how many times we sing it, until we bless Him and put Him and His Church back in their rightful places.

I’ve looked for political parties for years and in all my 33 years on this earth I’ve found none suitable in my lifetime. I personally look back to statesmen like Englebert Dolfuss and Antonio Salazar for examples of how a post-monarchic world can still adhere to traditional principles of authority and natural leadership and achieve the most crucial task of establishing a state guided by Catholic principles. There are none even remotely worthy today; politics itself may be beyond redemption without a collapse of secular social order, first.

The Church and the Empire were not so much united as in harmony. The Church was the supreme spiritual body on earth, under whom all spiritual matters lay, and the Empire was the supreme temporal body. The Church recognized the Holy Roman Emperor as paramount over all rulers, royal and non-royal alike, in the West, and the Empire recognized the Church as the one true one over all others. I believe a return to this system is what we should envision. Not the Erastian “state church” of Scandinavia and the UK. Not the theocratic overlap of Iran and Saudi Arabia. We need to envision the Empire and the Church as two united prinicipals, standing together for the cause of God and the Faith.

Yes!

The Medieval world had it right. We had a harmonious existence between Church and state - and when temporal rulers lost their way, the Church could shepherd them back into line. It wasn’t a perfect system, but as near to perfect as we fallible humans will ever see. That is the model for the future, when the senile secular state finally succumbs to its moribund nature and passes away.

 

[portarica]

Lycoth:“The Medieval world had it right. We had a harmonious existence between Church and state - and when temporal rulers lost their way, the Church could shepherd them back into line. It wasn’t a perfect system, but as near to perfect as we fallible humans will ever see. That is the model for the future, when the senile secular state finally succumbs to its moribund nature and passes away.”

They had it right with infanticide, slavery, trafficking, political vetoes of Popes, etc etc ??

Not only was it less fallible than now, it was much more barbaric and anti-teachings of Christ than now. It was much more fascist than spiritual.

The church itself is now much better aligned with what Jesus taught, in Medieval times the church was not a beacon for the oppressed but a proxy for the monarchs.

Peace

 

[Michael_Leonard]

“Seperation of Church and State” does not exist at all in our constitution. The constitution says that the Government of the United States shall not make a law establishing any one religion for our nation (the state). The reason our founding fathers did this was to prevent the in fighting and possible conflicts, which would inevitably probably ensue as was the case in the European Countries of those times. They also ensured that we would have the freedoms to practice our religions by stating that the Government has NO RIGHT to INTERFERE with the PRACTICE of ANY RELIGIONS that promote the general peace and welfare of the STATE (nation). Furthermore, since our systems of Law was entirely based on Jewdaeo Christian values(the 10 commandments established by OUR CREATOR), the Founding Fathers knew that there would be little threat of this being done away with since the vast majority of the citizenry at the time was a form of Christian. Also they ensured this by stating that our free speech was to be protected. For over 100 years this was protected, until middle to recent times unfortunately.

 

[portarica]

“Seperation of Church and State” does not exist at all in our constitution. The constitution says that the Government of the United States shall not make a law establishing any one religion for our nation (the state). The reason our founding fathers did this was to prevent the in fighting and possible conflicts, which would inevitably probably ensue as was the case in the European Countries of those times. They also ensured that we would have the freedoms to practice our religions by stating that the Government has NO RIGHT to INTERFERE with the PRACTICE of ANY RELIGIONS that promote the general peace and welfare of the STATE (nation). Furthermore, since our systems of Law was entirely based on Jewdaeo Christian values(the 10 commandments established by OUR CREATOR), the Founding Fathers knew that there would be little threat of this being done away with since the vast majority of the citizenry at the time was a form of Christian. Also they ensured this by stating that our free speech was to be protected. For over 100 years this was protected, until middle to recent times unfortunately.

It is interesting that you use the term “citizenry”, since the vast majority of the inhabitants of what were and were to become the US, were not Christians.

The founding fathers also realized that most of the screwed up things in Europe were condoned by one religious institution or another.

Also to say free speech was protected more in the first 100 years of the US ignores quite a bit of reality, certainly it ignores the reconstruction years in the south. It also ignores the reality of the internet which is a great expansion of the ability to practice free speech.

Peace

 

[sedonaman]

…
Also to say free speech was protected more in the first 100 years of the US ignores quite a bit of reality, certainly it ignores the reconstruction years in the south. It also ignores the reality of the internet which is a great expansion of the ability to practice free speech.

Peace

It also ignores the post-modern academy, a group of institutions that claim freedom of speech is necessary for its pursuit of truth. This, of course, assumes that its goal is the pursuit of truth.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Lycoth:“The Medieval world had it right. We had a harmonious existence between Church and state - and when temporal rulers lost their way, the Church could shepherd them back into line. It wasn’t a perfect system, but as near to perfect as we fallible humans will ever see. That is the model for the future, when the senile secular state finally succumbs to its moribund nature and passes away.”

They had it right with infanticide, slavery, trafficking, political vetoes of Popes, etc etc ??

Not only was it less fallible than now, it was much more barbaric and anti-teachings of Christ than now. It was much more fascist than spiritual.

The church itself is now much better aligned with what Jesus taught, in Medieval times the church was not a beacon for the oppressed but a proxy for the monarchs.

Peace

Portarica, what are you talking about? Have you read any scholarly works on the Medieval times? I am sure Emperor Frederick Barbarossa would love to have heard the Pope was his proxy, because he was certainly under another impression! Need I also name King Phillip the Fair of France? The Investiture controversy? I do not even know where the slavery, trafficking, infanticide and all that came from. Not a Medieval era I know, and certainly it was exceptional, unlike the modern post-Reformation West.

Fascist? This does not reflect at all the political system of the Middle Ages. Even the most powerful Holy Roman Emperor had to request his nobles go to war, and they could choose whether or not to send troops! In no war did the all the Holy Roman Empire’s nobles send their troops. Can you imagine a governor refusing to send the National Guard now? Oops, sorry, already happened. Kathleen Blanco, governor of Louisiana, attempted to do this under Bush and Hurricane Katrina and lost. Freedom huh?

This imagined nightmare version of the world in the Medieval era is no more true than the tale of Cinderella. To state that the Church was not a beacon to the oppressed shows no knowledge of either the world of the Middle Ages nor our own world, where apparently nuclear and biological warfare, perpetual war (we have been in a war of some kind non-stop since 1941), the corporate-run state, authoritarian police measures, and wanton, naked power is more humane than the confessional state of the Middle Ages. Wow.

 

[EnchantedEve]

It is interesting that you use the term “citizenry”, since the vast majority of the inhabitants of what were and were to become the US, were not Christians.

The founding fathers also realized that most of the screwed up things in Europe were condoned by one religious institution or another.

Also to say free speech was protected more in the first 100 years of the US ignores quite a bit of reality, certainly it ignores the reconstruction years in the south. It also ignores the reality of the internet which is a great expansion of the ability to practice free speech.

Peace

Most of the evils of this country have been either condoned or promoted by the state, even funded by it. So what is the next step now, anarchy? We got rid of the Church, why not throw out the state too? It least this would be logical, if not down right rational. If the Church screwed things up, the state has certainly done a brilliant job itself!

Again, all of this still ignores that the US had state churches after the Constitution, just not on the federal level. Is the Congregational sect now to blame for our country’s problems?

 

[portarica]

They had it right with infanticide, slavery, trafficking, political vetoes of Popes, etc etc ??

Not only was it less fallible than now, it was much more barbaric and anti-teachings of Christ than now. It was much more fascist than spiritual.

The church itself is now much better aligned with what Jesus taught, in Medieval times the church was not a beacon for the oppressed but a proxy for the monarchs.

Peace

Portarica, what are you talking about? Have you read any scholarly works on the Medieval times? I am sure Emperor Frederick Barbarossa would love to have heard the Pope was his proxy, because he was certainly under another impression! Need I also name King Phillip the Fair of France? The Investiture controversy? I do not even know where the slavery, trafficking, infanticide and all that came from. Not a Medieval era I know, and certainly it was exceptional, unlike the modern post-Reformation West.

Fascist? This does not reflect at all the political system of the Middle Ages. Even the most powerful Holy Roman Emperor had to request his nobles go to war, and they could choose whether or not to send troops! In no war did the all the Holy Roman Empire’s nobles send their troops. Can you imagine a governor refusing to send the National Guard now? Oops, sorry, already happened. Kathleen Blanco, governor of Louisiana, attempted to do this under Bush and Hurricane Katrina and lost. Freedom huh?

This imagined nightmare version of the world in the Medieval era is no more true than the tale of Cinderella. To state that the Church was not a beacon to the oppressed shows no knowledge of either the world of the Middle Ages nor our own world, where apparently nuclear and biological warfare, perpetual war (we have been in a war of some kind non-stop since 1941), the corporate-run state, authoritarian police measures, and wanton, naked power is more humane than the confessional state of the Middle Ages. Wow.

Perhaps you should look into how the majority of people lived in Medieval times.
You will realize that infanticide, slavery , trafficking, child labor, was the norm.What of the natural law rights did the peasantry have?

What did the church do to try to eliminate those practices? It didn’t need to because the whole point of the thing then was just to get into heaven. It wasn’t about feeding your neighbor it was hoping just to survive childbirth, then infancy, then the first five years…

As to the problems of modern times that you mention, the Church does constantly speak out against the ones you mention. Hence my comment about the Church now being more closely aligned to what Jesus taught.

As for wars, boundaries were constantly being crossed by hostile parties, and the nobles you mentioned were not always loyal to a country, but frequently loyal first to their own best interests.

And did the church ever protest the monarch’s treatment of their subjects and the church’s sheep?

In an ironic happenstance, the church began to acquire more moral credibility as it becomes more divorced and separated from the state. When the church has less temporal power it has more moral power.

Peace

 

[janet_baker76]

Here is what Pope Benedict said last year on this topic.

Indeed, we may say that the distinction between religion and politics is a specific achievement of Christianity and one of its fundamental historical and cultural contributions.

Colin is right to quote this. Yes, the post-Vatican II church does consistently say that the secular state is the great achievement of mankind, following Vatican II’s new teaching. You can find the prepositions in the constitution Dignitatis humanae. You may have read them before without realizing that they assert ideas that were explicitly condemned by the Church before, almost word for word in the case of Pius IX’s Quanta cura. Colin is right to say that Benedict XVI supports the separation of Church and state. But perhaps he does not know that the traditional Church did not.

So the question is not closed, since we Catholics are never free to depart from the tradition of the Church. As long as there are faithful who will read tradition, and as long as human beings retain our slight facility for logicical thinking, the question will not be closed. It is presently one of the items on the agenda of the talks between the Society of Pius X and the Vatican.

Where is the error in the new teaching? What is the problem? We quasi-protestants in the US cannot get our heads around it, because we were raised to be secularists. The problem is that before the Council, the Church always correctly taught that absolute religious liberty (absolute means by right, not by courtesy–get the difference?) necessarily means state atheism, in the end. Please allow me to quote two paragraphs from Leo XIII’s Libertas talking about a new error in the world called “liberty of worship”:

Liberty of forms of worship, considered in its relationship to society, is founded on the principle that the State, even in a Catholic nation, is not bound to profess or to favor any cult; it must remain indifferent with regard to all and take them all into equal consideration legally. It is not a question here of that de facto tolerance which, in given circumstances, can be conceded to the dissident cults, but rather of the recognition granted to them of the very rights that belong only to the one true religion, which God has established in the world and has designated with clear and precise characters and signs, so that everyone can recognize it as such and embrace it.

Further, such a liberty indeed places on the same level truth and error, faith and heresy, the Church of Jesus Christ and any human institution whatever; it establishes a deplorable and deadly separation between human society and God its Author; it leads finally to the sad consequences of State indifferentism in religious matters, or, what comes to the same thing, its atheism.]

I hope Colin will continue to research this issue. A great book to start is They Have Uncrowned Him, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It is very thoroughly footnoted and easy to read as well. I admit it is rather painful for an American like myself, raised to equate secularism with patriotism, to get my head around it, that to say that all religions, including my own, are equal, is to abandon Christ. It is to deny Christ, and all He stood for, and most of all, died for. It’s really about love, to me, and love is really what it takes to get to heaven. I am pretty sure you can’t say Christ is King and mean it, when you’ve got your fingers crossed behind your back, and you’re muttering,’ And Buddha…and Krishna…and all those other guys.’ It’s like saying all the boys really are ‘equal,’ and then trying to fall in love with just one. Anyway that’s how I feel about it.

A more rational and less emotional person than myself might point out (one encyclical does) that society doesn’t work when society and faith don’t agree on such major points as whether murder and theft are wrong, and what a parent’s role in a kid’s life should be, on marriage and divorce and appropriate sexual behavior, on even something like whether or not we will have a Lord’s day when they can’t make us work. It makes an unhappy society (except for a very few people) when we honor nothing, and arguably a more violent one. There is just no way anybody can say we’re happier and healthier and wealthier now than when God still had a toehold in our society, before the inevitable shaking out of protestantism finished, which took time and hadn’t resulted yet in what we have now.

What we have now. Do you really like it? Would it not be better to live where there was a small tip of the hat to the Creator? We are sick to death from not having it!