Should Wicca be illegal?

[R_H_Benson]

The Church rightly condemns errors. But the Church upholds people’s rights to practice even false religions in peace, free from state coercion, as part of their God-given rights to seek the truth free of coercion.

To me, this sounds incoherent. Error has no rights, therefore no one can have a right to practice a false religion. A state can tolerate that some of its subjects are practicing a false religion, but the state oversteps its authority when it claims to ascribe to them the right to do so. There is an important distinction between toleration and ascribing rights to error.

The Syllabus does not condemn religious freedom. It condemns the notion that one can pick-and-choose a religion according to what he considers “true”; even we still do that. It’s called relativism. It does not condone state coercion against those of differing religions. If one practices a false religion, he is rightly called in error. He is not morally free to persist in that religion especially when the truth is made clear to him. ** But it does NOT entitle the state to strongarm him into converting**.

The State’s first and foremost responsibility is the defense of the common good - public order is just one facet of the common good. Obviously, in today’s morally relativistic secular society, what defines the “common good” is no longer in harmony with the traditional Catholic concept. However, examining the issue from an ideal Catholic perspective, it is apparent that there is a middle ground between the ascription of rights to false religions and strong arming them into conversion to the Catholic Faith. A Catholic should have no issue with a State which gives legal and social precedence to Catholic Truth, because Catholicism is that which leads society to the attainment of the common good and ultimately to salvation. A state in which Catholicism is acknowledged as the one true religion and governs in accord with that principle is the ideal. Such a state would no doubt rightfully place limitations on the practice of false religions which necessarily harm the common good. These limitations need not coerce adherents of false religions to conversion. The argument that by not ascribing rights to false religions a state strong arms their adherents into Catholicism is a false dichotomy.

This is the key difference between the Syllabus and Dignitatis Humanae, the latter of which is, of course, a Magisterial document.

That is debatable, and even if it were unconditionally true, Dignitatis Humanae, like any other document, must be interpreted through the lens of tradition. For it is in this manner that documents - even those produced by a Council - derive their veracity and authority.

If you want Catholics to be left in peace, the state must leave those of other religions in peace as well.

True, but only where the state has already abandon its duty as the protector of the common good. In an argument from an idealistic Catholic position, that statement is false.

Those who claim that the Church has rejected religious freedom is holding on to a simplistic interpretation without consideration of the overall Magisterium on the matter.

Maybe so, but I am left unconvinced by the argument you presented here. Practically speaking, and from a perspective rooted in American presuppositions and assumptions, what you have argued makes sense. But not from a traditional Catholic perspective.

Error may have no rights, but those who are in error do.

Agreed. But there must be a better way of putting this maxim into practice. Unfortunately, it seems to have already become yet another issue where lip service is paid to the traditional teaching on the matter, but “ecumenical initiatives” have made actually putting the authentic teachings into practice a near impossibility.

 

[porthos11]

I have never said anything about Our Bishops preaching heresy what I said is that allowing others to embrace error is wrong because it can lead to religious indifferenism

We are required by Christ to establish the Social Reign of Christ The King which involves us to convert non believers to Catholicism.

Of course we respect their right to rebellion against God’s Church and Our Lord but we must go out and evangelize those outside the True Faith along with Ourselves and our families.

But that’s not what you said in response to the OP’s question. You instead condemned the notion of religious liberty, a human, natural right upheld by the Catholic Church.

The OP was specific: should W be illegal?

The answer is no.

That does in no way absolve us of our responsibility to evangelize them or them of their responsibility to seek the truth, and to embrace it once they know it. But it does mean that for as long as public order is not disturbed, the state must leave religions alone.

 

[Trad_Catholic27]

Vatican II never changed the Church and Her traditional teaching on religious freedom.

The idea of religious freedom came from to the freemasons who had an evil agenda to undermine the Church and Her teachings.

Many Bishops in America began in the 1860’s to try to change the teachings of the Church to make Catholics good Americans instead of good Catholics.

Today’s bishops are unknowingly acting like Americanists because they never learned about how Pope Leo XIII spoke out against it during His reign as Holy Vicar in the late 1800’s

 

[porthos11]

To me, this sounds incoherent. Error has no rights, therefore no one can have a right to practice a false religion. A state can tolerate that some of its subjects are practicing a false religion, but the state oversteps its authority when it claims to ascribe to them the right to do so. There is an important distinction between toleration and ascribing rights to error.

The State’s first and foremost responsibility is the defense of the common good. Obviously, in today’s morally relativistic secular society, what defines the “common good” is no longer in harmony with the traditional Catholic concept. However, examining the issue from an ideal Catholic perspective, it is apparent that there is a middle ground between the ascription of rights to false religions and strong arming them into conversion to the Catholic Faith. A Catholic should have no issue with a State who gives legal and social precedence to Catholic Truth, because Catholicism is that which leads society to the attainment of the common good and ultimately to salvation. A state in which Catholicism is acknowledged as the one true religion and governs in accord with that principle is the ideal. Such a state would no doubt rightfully place limitations on the practice of false religions which necessarily harm the common good. These limitations need not coerce adherents of false religions to conversion. The argument that by not ascribing rights to false religions a state strong arms their adherents into Catholicism is a false dichotomy.

That is debatable, and even if it were unconditionally true, Dignitatis Humanae, like any other document, must be interpreted through the lens of tradition. For it is in this manner that documents - even those produced by a Council - derive their veracity and authority.

Only by a straw man presentation of the issue can comparisons be drawn between not ascribing legal rights to false religions and the manner in which Muslim states persecute Christians.

True, but only where the state has already abandon its duty as the protector of the common good. In an argument from an idealistic Catholic position, that statement is false.

Maybe so, but I am left unconvinced by the argument you presented here. Practically speaking, and from a perspective rooted in American presuppositions and assumptions, what you have argued makes sense. But not from a traditional Catholic perspective.

Agreed. But there must be a better way of putting this maxim into practice. Unfortunately, it seems to have already become yet another issue where lip service is paid to the traditional teaching on the matter, but “pastoral initiatives” have made actually putting the authentic teachings into practice a near impossibility.

We do not live in an ideal Catholic world. We live in a world where people are in error in good faith. If you would deny them their freedom to practice their religions, what would you have the state do? Would you have the state violate their freedom to seek the truth, and thereby, curtail their ability to find it? Would you fine them, throw them in ghettoes, arrest them? Impose a premium on building permits if they want to build a mosque? What?

This is why religious freedom is a natural right, and the Church would have become a civil right as well because this right is essential for all men to freely seek and find the truth, without fear or force.

Because it is a right that stems from nature and the dignity of the human person to fulfill his obligation to worship God. This means, it leaves the path open for everyone to become Catholic, and denying people religious liberty will thwart the path for certain people into the Catholic Church.

And call it public order or common good, this is where the line is drawn. Practicing a religion in peace, even if false, does not disturb the public order. Therefore, if a false religion minds its own business, it should be left alone. If it begins sacrificing virgins, ritually molesting children, or blowing up train stations, that’s where religious liberty ends.

 

[porthos11]

Vatican II never changed the Church and Her traditional teaching on religious freedom.

The idea of religious freedom came from to the freemasons who had an evil agenda to undermine the Church and Her teachings.

Many Bishops in America began in the 1860’s to try to change the teachings of the Church to make Catholics good Americans instead of good Catholics.

Today’s bishops are unknowingly acting like Americanists because they never learned about how Pope Leo XIII spoke out against it during His reign as Holy Vicar in the late 1800’s

No, she hasn’t. Read Dignitatis humanae. THAT is where one gets the proper understanding of religious freedom. Not as it is caricatured by “pastoral” concerns or traditionalists who would have the state throttle all non-Catholic religions.

 

[Padres1969]

The State’s first and foremost responsibility is the defense of the common good - public order is just one facet of the common good. Obviously, in today’s morally relativistic secular society, what defines the “common good” is no longer in harmony with the traditional Catholic concept. However, examining the issue from an ideal Catholic perspective, it is apparent that there is a middle ground between the ascription of rights to false religions and strong arming them into conversion to the Catholic Faith. A Catholic should have no issue with a State which gives legal and social precedence to Catholic Truth, because Catholicism is that which leads society to the attainment of the common good and ultimately to salvation.** A state in which Catholicism is acknowledged as the one true religion and governs in accord with that principle is the ideal. ** Such a state would no doubt rightfully place limitations on the practice of false religions which necessarily harm the common good. These limitations need not coerce adherents of false religions to conversion. The argument that by not ascribing rights to false religions a state strong arms their adherents into Catholicism is a false dichotomy.

Except that ever time that has happened historically that hasn’t been the case

In no small part because limiting the practice of what you call false religions invariably drives people away from what you’d term the true religion. People naturally feel coerced and resentful when they’re left with either no alternative or one alternative that is accepted and another that is allowed but ultimately treated as second class. And make no mistake, the second you make a state religion, even if you allow other religions to practice, the other religions take on a second class status whether you intend it or not.

 

[R_H_Benson]

We do not live in an ideal Catholic world. We live in a world where people are in error in good faith.

Agreed. No one has ever lived in an “ideal Catholic world” - not at least until, God willing, we attain heaven. Even so, our principles need to be formulated on ideals - not on contemporary practicalities.

Yes - there are many who are “in error in good faith” - meaning that they sincerely subscribe to false religions. Such people existed at the high of Christendom and continue to exist today.

If you would deny them their freedom to practice their religions, what would you have the state do?

A state should tolerate those who practice false religions, doing all within its power to bring them the truth of Catholicism, observing all charity and human decency in the process.

Once again, however, I shy away from calling it “freedom” and find “toleration” to be a much more appropriate term. True freedom cannot be opposed to truth and always seeks that which is Good. Therefore, when we say that adherents of false religions are “free” to practice said false religions we are contradicting ourselves. They may be exercising an apparent freedom, but not authentic freedom. Any one who commits error - knowingly or not - objectively acts contrarily to freedom.

Would you have the state violate their freedom to seek the truth, and thereby, curtail their ability to find it?

Of course not. But since no one is free to commit error, the state does not violate freedom by favoring Catholic Truth even at the expense of false religions. This would not curtail anyone’s ability to find the truth - rather, it would supplement and augment it by urging them, in charity and without coercion, towards Catholicism.

This is why religious freedom is a natural right

Yes - it is a natural right - but only when the term freedom is properly understood. You seem to be arguing that those in error are exercising freedom, but this is not possible. The right to religious freedom means that no force has the authority to hinder one from coming to the Catholic Religion.

Because it is a right that stems from nature and the dignity of the human person to fulfill his obligation to worship God. This means, it leaves the path open for everyone to become Catholic, and denying people religious liberty will thwart the path for certain people into the Catholic Church.

I agree with you here for the most part. I disagree with the bold, because, once again, it is based in your faulty definition of religious liberty. In essence, you are arguing that if the state were to deny people the choice to practice false religions, that thwarts them from becoming Catholic. I suppose in some cases that could be true, but there is nothing necessarily true about that assertion and it could be remedied by authentic pastoral adjustments.

And call it public order or common good, this is where the line is drawn. Practicing a religion in peace, even if false, does not disturb the public order. Therefore, if a false religion minds its own business, it should be left alone. If it begins sacrificing virgins, ritually molesting children, or blowing up train stations, that’s where religious liberty ends.

I disagree that the public order and the common good are synonymous. Public order may be a facet of the common good - but it is not all that makes up the common good. A reductio ad absurdum of that line of thought is that a Catholic state could make no adjustments to its religious liberty policies even if 95% of its population were peaceful Wiccans because they were not disrupting the public order. The common good is more than just the maintaining of order. It is providing the people with a government that fosters the truth and provides them with and protects an environment that will help them along the road to eternal salvation.

 

[porthos11]

Agreed. No one has ever lived in an “ideal Catholic world” - not at least until, God willing, we attain heaven. Even so, our principles need to be formulated on ideals - not on contemporary practicalities.

Yes - there are many who are “in error in good faith” - meaning that they sincerely subscribe to false religions. Such people existed at the high of Christendom and continue to exist today.

A state should tolerate those who practice false religions, doing all within its power to bring them the truth of Catholicism, observing all charity and human decency in the process.

Once again, however, I shy away from calling it “freedom” and find “toleration” to be a much more appropriate term. True freedom cannot be opposed to truth and always seeks that which is Good. Therefore, when we say that adherents of false religions are “free” to practice said false religions we are contradicting ourselves. They may be exercising an apparent freedom, but not authentic freedom. Any one who commits error - knowingly or not - objectively acts contrarily to freedom.

Of course not. But since no one is free to commit error, the state does not violate freedom by favoring Catholic Truth even at the expense of false religions. This would not curtail anyone’s ability to find the truth - rather, it would supplement and augment it by urging them, in charity and without coercion, towards Catholicism.

Yes - it is a natural right - but only when the term freedom is properly understood. You seem to be arguing that those in error are exercising freedom, but this is not possible. The right to religious freedom means that no force has the authority to hinder one from coming to the Catholic Religion.

I agree with you here for the most part. I disagree with the bold, because, once again, it is based in your faulty definition of religious liberty. In essence, you are arguing that if the state were to deny people the choice to practice false religions, that thwarts them from becoming Catholic. I suppose in some cases that could be true, but there is nothing necessarily true about that assertion and it could be remedied by authentic pastoral adjustments.

I disagree that the public order and the common good are synonymous. Public order may be a facet of the common good - but it is not all that makes up the common good. A reductio ad absurdum of that line of thought is that a Catholic state could make no adjustments to its religious liberty policies even if 95% of its population were peaceful Wiccans because they were not disrupting the public order. The common good is more than just the maintaining of order. It is providing the people with a government that fosters the truth and provides them with and protects an environment that will help them along the road to eternal salvation.

And if the state is secular or Islamic? Would you also expect it to charitably guide people to the Catholic Church? No. You would begging them to leave you alone.

I accept only one definition of religious freedom or religious liberty, and that is what is defined by Dignitatis humanae. What Dignitatis humanae calls religious freedom, so do I.

The Decree’s definition is clear: freedom from coercion in civil society by the state. What you call mere “tolerance”, the Church calls it freedom. Since the Church calls it religious freedom, then I, as a Catholic call it such. By defining it properly for the purpose of the Decree, the Church wisely frames it with a particular meaning of “freedom”, and that is freedom in the civil sphere.

And even in the moral sphere, of course freedom can be opposed to the truth or seek that which is evil. That’s how people go to hell in the first place, because of the misuse of their freedom. But that’s not what the Decree covers; it’s strictly limited to natural and civil freedom.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

The Church has always rejected religious freedom in Blessed Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors He made this perfectly clear.

Error has no rights only Catholicism because it’s the True Faith which can lead souls to Heaven.

Religious liberty leads to secularism and a Godless liberal State and that is why we are in the mess of today.

What should the punishment be for the folks who refuse to practice state sponsored Catholicism?

 

[GEddie]

Nope.

Either you have religious freedom, or you don’t! **Full stop.

ICXC NIKA**

 

[Trad_Catholic27]

There would be no punishment for them

There false religions would be tolerated but Catholicism would be supported by the State for the salvation of all.

That’s means those outside the True Faith could enter the Catholic Church of their own free will if they choose do so

 

[porthos11]

There would be no punishment for them

There false religions would be tolerated but Catholicism would be supported by the State for the salvation of all.

That’s means those outside the True Faith could enter the Catholic Church of their own free will if they choose do so

Then you support religious freedom.

 

[Crusaderbear]

My experience has been wiccans are nature worshipers, nothing evil, though possibly distasteful to christians.

God gave us free will, that includes the freedom to choose wrong. All you can do is show them the path by example.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

To me, this sounds incoherent. Error has no rights, therefore no one can have a right to practice a false religion. A state can tolerate that some of its subjects are practicing a false religion, but the state oversteps its authority when it claims to ascribe to them the right to do so. There is an important distinction between toleration and ascribing rights to error.

The State’s first and foremost responsibility is the defense of the common good - public order is just one facet of the common good. Obviously, in today’s morally relativistic secular society, what defines the “common good” is no longer in harmony with the traditional Catholic concept. However, examining the issue from an ideal Catholic perspective, it is apparent that there is a middle ground between the ascription of rights to false religions and strong arming them into conversion to the Catholic Faith. A Catholic should have no issue with a State which gives legal and social precedence to Catholic Truth, because Catholicism is that which leads society to the attainment of the common good and ultimately to salvation. A state in which Catholicism is acknowledged as the one true religion and governs in accord with that principle is the ideal. Such a state would no doubt rightfully place limitations on the practice of false religions which necessarily harm the common good. These limitations need not coerce adherents of false religions to conversion. The argument that by not ascribing rights to false religions a state strong arms their adherents into Catholicism is a false dichotomy.

That is debatable, and even if it were unconditionally true, Dignitatis Humanae, like any other document, must be interpreted through the lens of tradition. For it is in this manner that documents - even those produced by a Council - derive their veracity and authority.

True, but only where the state has already abandon its duty as the protector of the common good. In an argument from an idealistic Catholic position, that statement is false.

Maybe so, but I am left unconvinced by the argument you presented here. Practically speaking, and from a perspective rooted in American presuppositions and assumptions, what you have argued makes sense. But not from a traditional Catholic perspective.

Agreed. But there must be a better way of putting this maxim into practice. Unfortunately, it seems to have already become yet another issue where lip service is paid to the traditional teaching on the matter, but “ecumenical initiatives” have made actually putting the authentic teachings into practice a near impossibility.

Which nation is more - statistically at least - “religious:” the U.S., which has practiced tolerance (to a greater or lesser degree) and which has not given official precedence to any one religion – or – pick a nation in Europe, say, France, the “eldest daughter of the Church,” where the Church had official precedence and exercised a level of intolerance for other expressions of Christianity, and which is thoroughly post-Christian? Or Italy - filled with scoffers, religious cynics, and beautiful empty churches? Or even Ireland, where the heavy hand of the church enforced religion and killed the Faith?

 

[Sarcelle]

I suppose since we live in the USA it would be impracticle or unwise to call for the end of Wicca. My apologies.

Although… I hear wiccas do engage in casting curses, spells, and hexes.

I have seen them in Barnes and Noble buying their spellbooks. I sometimes fear who they have targeted.

My best friend is a Wiccan. Have you heard of the rule of three?

If a witch casts a spell, he or she will have a triple dose of whatever he or she has wished on another person. A good turn will yield three times the blessings to the blessed while a curse will yield three times the curses to the curser.

 

[arthra]

Should it?

The Bible is filled with references to how awful Witchcraft is, and “Wiccans” are basically modern day witches.

While “Thou shallt not suffer a witch to live” only applied to the ancient Hebrews, should there be any state action against Wicca, spell-books etc?

Wiccans are pretty harmless and until they break laws should be accorded all the civil rights and liberties of citizens in my view.

 

[Peter_J]

Should it?

Count me as one Catholic who is against such a proposition.

Still, I guess I prefer listening to that proposal than to one that calls for outlawing Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, etc.

(Edit: I intended that last sentence to introduce a new topic to the thread, but now I see that others have already discussed such outlawing-possibilities on this thread. I’m not sure if that should make me happy or scared. )

 

[Sarcelle]

Count me as one Catholic who is against such a proposition.

Still, I guess I prefer listening to that proposal than to one that calls for outlawing Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, etc.

(Edit: I intended that last sentence to introduce a new topic to the thread, but now I see that others have already discussed such outlawing-possibilities on this thread. I’m not sure if that should make me happy or scared. )

Have you heard about the Christian Reconstructionist movement? They call for a return of Old Testament style law with stoning for adulterers, homosexuals, and disobedient children. Catholicism is one of the many beliefs they plan to outlaw. The pusihment of course is stoning.

 

[Rohzek]

The idea that Wiccans are even more prone to harm people or society is absolute nonsense. So why create laws against it? There is no justification for it. Besides, it seems that many people here don’t have a clue about Wiccan doctrines and practices. They simply try to live in harmony with nature.

The lead singer of Godsmack is Wiccan, and he is probably one of the most sober and good rock stars out there today.

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure Wicca is even a recognized religion. From what I’ve studied, magic is involved, sometimes not. The pentagram is often seen but it is claimed it is not connected to Satanism. Other the other hand, it does echo a statement attributed to Aleister Crowley: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” Contrast that with “and it harm none, do what ye will.”

Religious freedom is not the issue here but is Wicca a religion and does the State recognize it as such? There is a thick reference book available at any major library that lists many recognized religions.

Ed