St Thomas More: a question

[KShaft]

So in summary, dont join the Franciscans(stick with the Benedictines they make the best beer and cheese in the world anyway) and Vatican II is a liberal heretics dream.

Damn commies…even in the Church…damn…

 

[JReducation]

So in summary, dont join the Franciscans(stick with the Benedictines they make the best beer and cheese in the world anyway) and Vatican II is a liberal heretics dream.

Damn commies…even in the Church…damn…

Exuse me! Please say that this is a bad joke or even a good one that I’m not getting. As I am a Franciscan, I take this very personally.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[albertziggy]

Well, some of my brother and sisters have a “Franciscan” wardrobe, i.e. clothes of natural neutral colors (brown, gray, black, etc.) and generally inexpensive. I guess this is looking too religious, too. I’ll be sure to bring this up at the next meeting along with a suggestion for a new title for the order: Mr. and Mrs. of Penance…or should that be: Mr. and Mrs. of Wellness? Heck, call it the Secular Wellness Order.

[levity ends here]

I am one who feels called to address some of these issues within our order, and I look forward to working toward some of the goals mentioned by brother albertziggy. All it takes is time.

Albertziggy is quite right about the perception of the word “penance”. It has lost its original biblical meaning best described by the term metanoia, which is process of conversion toward God that takes a lifetime (and sometimes a rule of life) to complete. I think penance has the same negative connotations as “diet” or “exercise”. It’s funny how much energy people will expend and how much pain they will endure to sculpt their bodies into the physiques of the gods, but how little they will do shape their souls.

Just an observation.

In Christ,

Thanks Sir, for your comments. I am glad that you will bring up the issues in your fraternity. The changes we hope for can only come from us Secular Franciscans. I will do the same. BTW, are you using the ‘Fully Mature…’ module in your novitiate program? I am interested to know your comments/honest opinion regarding the session on Penance.

---

The posts on the CA regarding the Secular Franciscans have helped us tremendously in being aware of what is needed to be done, and I believe we have to thank Br. JR a lot! Thanks Br. JR. (Btw, I like your blog!)

I just would like to add something to what Br. JR stated regarding the lack of identity. There are still Secular Franciscans who think a lot less of themselves compared to the ordained friars (the non-ordained friars are still ‘virtually unknown’ to some!). Recently, I was with a group of Secular Franciscans, and one brother mentioned that he was accepted as Franciscan Conventual postulant. Everyone was happy about the news, but what disturbed me was that they kept on saying he was going ‘one-level-higher’. I wished that they would have considered it a ‘lateral transfer’ instead (sigh!).

In Christ,
albertziggy

 

[ausculta]

Thanks Sir, for your comments. I am glad that you will bring up the issues in your fraternity. The changes we hope for can only come from us Secular Franciscans. I will do the same. BTW, are you using the ‘Fully Mature…’ module in your novitiate program? I am interested to know your comments/honest opinion regarding the session on Penance.

Thank you kindly for your commiseration. My fraternity currently uses Catch Me A Rainbow Too for formation. This very fact nearly scared me away two years ago. I took the initiative and purchased Fully Mature in the Fullness of Christ, and I use it side by side with the other book to supplement my formation.

The posts on the CA regarding the Secular Franciscans have helped us tremendously in being aware of what is needed to be done, and I believe we have to thank Br. JR a lot! Thanks Br. JR. (Btw, I like your blog!)

I just would like to add something to what Br. JR stated regarding the lack of identity. There are still Secular Franciscans who think a lot less of themselves compared to the ordained friars (the non-ordained friars are still ‘virtually unknown’ to some!). Recently, I was with a group of Secular Franciscans, and one brother mentioned that he was accepted as Franciscan Conventual postulant. Everyone was happy about the news, but what disturbed me was that they kept on saying he was going ‘one-level-higher’. I wished that they would have considered it a ‘lateral transfer’ instead (sigh!).

In Christ,
albertziggy

I agree. Br. JR’s posts have been very informative and clarifying. His zeal for Franciscan history and identity has compelled me to do some digging on my own. I just finished a wonderful book on our history called, St. Francis and the Third Order by Fr. Raffaele Pazzelli, TOR. It’s out of print and hard to find, but if you can track one down its worth the effort.

Peace and all Good,

 

[JReducation]

First, thank you for your kind words.

Second, Pazzeli’s books is excellent. He has an very clear historical picture of the entire penitential movement.

Third, the young man who referred to joinging the Conventual Franciscans as a step up is seriously mistaken. Allow me to explain this differently. I hope that this makes sense.

The Secular Fraciscans are a canonical order in the Catholic Church, whith the same rights as the Jesuits, Dominicans, Carmelites, Missionaries of Charity, Capuchins, Trappists, etc. The duties and obligations between all of these orders are different, because each has its own mission and the founders had a vision for each of them.

I would not call a move from the Franciscans to the Trappists as an upward move. You’re moving from one spiritual family to another. That’s all.

Another example – a diocesan priest, despite the Sacrament of Holy Orders, remains a secular man. He is not a consecrated man. The word consecrated is often used to speak about diocesan priests, but it means something very different from that of a consecration by religious vows. The consecration of a diocesan priest means a dedication. The consecration of a man or woman in vows is a covenant. You can be very dedicated, but not be in a covenant. Even there, when a diocesan priest joins a religious order, we do not say that he is moving “uptown”. Why not? Religious life and the priesthood have nothing to do with each other. What he is doing is responding to two calls: priesthood and consecrated life. You can’t place something on a ladder if they are not the same.

Then there is the eternal rankinf of friars who are ordained and those who are not ordained. First, we keep referring to the non-ordained as Brothers. That’s the big mistake right there. What did Francis call all of his followers? Where they not all brothers? Did he not refer to St. Anthony of Padua as “Brother Anthony, my bishop”. To this day we call the man, Brother Elias, while we know that he was a priest and pastor of a parish. We still refer to Francis as Father Francis and he was never a priest.

The phrase “priests and brothers” is canonically incorrect and incorrect from the point of view of the founders. Brother is a term used to define every member of one family. Every Conventual is a brother to the other. They are all brothers.

Priest defines the ministry that one does. Those who do ordained ministry are priests. Do they cease to be brothers to their fellow Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelties, Benedictines, and Trappists? They’ll tell you NO. Thefore, they constitution and Church law refers to them as Brother.

There is not upward or downward ranking there either. A man’s ministry (priesthood, teacher, murse, cooks, porter, etc) is one thing. His life within the community is another. Within the community he lives as a brother to everyone. His vows make him a brother. The Sacrament of Holy Orders does not trump the vows of a religious. That’s why Church law says that all religoius must first make solemn vows before the can be ordained and only those religious who receive permission from their superiors can be ordained. The focus in religious life is on being a brother, not on doing priestly things, or doing whatever teachers do ,etc.

If this person is looking for mobility he will leave. There is no upward mobility in a religious house.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

I too was drawn to St.Thomas More after seeing the movie,A Man For All Seasons with paul Scofield as St.Thomas. In fact I have a reproduction of Hans Holbein’s portrait of him hanging on the living room wall. My parents bought it for me for my 16th birthday,it was from the Vincent Price Collection for Sears.
Anyhow, I’m not really sure.I think maybe it was the franciscans, but may try to google this topic and see hwat comes up.

He used to be one of my favorites, too. I saw the original London production in New York, read the play and still have a paperweight-type medal of him.

However, you should find and read an authoritative biography. In the end, he wasn’t so nice–he was definitely sanitized by the play, “A Man For All Seasons”. He advocated a theocracy, and supported and enacted the execution of heretics, and I believed signed the order for one to be burned.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

He used to be one of my favorites, too. I saw the original London production in New York, read the play and still have a paperweight-type medal of him.

However, you should find and read an authoritative biography. In the end, he wasn’t so nice–he was definitely sanitized by the play, “A Man For All Seasons”. He advocated a theocracy, and supported and enacted the execution of heretics, and I believed signed the order for one to be burned.

I have never read this. Can someone please confirm/deny?

 

[JReducation]

He used to be one of my favorites, too. I saw the original London production in New York, read the play and still have a paperweight-type medal of him.

However, you should find and read an authoritative biography. In the end, he wasn’t so nice–he was definitely sanitized by the play, “A Man For All Seasons”. He advocated a theocracy, and supported and enacted the execution of heretics, and I believed signed the order for one to be burned.

It is true that he advocated for theocracy. His book Utopia is about a society where God reigns supreme and is governed by the Revealed Truths. I don’t know about the heretic. It may or may not be true.

In any case, it takes nothing away from his sanctity. The fact is that he is a saint. A canonization is an infallible statement that must be believed and observed by all Catholics and proclaimed to non-Catholics.

We have to remember that what is objectionable to us because it may offend our sensibilities, is not necessarily objectionable to God. That’s one thing. Secondly, saints are products of their time. Thirdly, a saint is one who has lived a truly heroic life of virtue.

St. Francis of Assisi had his Vicar General excommunicated for disobeying him and disagreeing with him in public. St. Teresa of Avila threatened to have a man’s head cut off by the local magistrate if he dared approach the convent again. St. Maximilian Kolbe had three friars excommunicated for disagreeing with him when he was the local superior, because the rule of St. Francis is very clear that you may never disagree with the superior. He enjoys Franciscan succession. That is, he is the direct successor of St. Francis and no one may disagree with St. Francis. Long story short, those who were excommunicated did penance and recanted. They returned and died very holy deaths. The individual whom Teresa threatened to have his head cut off never came near the convent again.

Yes, saints are heroes, as well as men and women of superior virtue. But they are also well grounded in their time. They don’t live on clouds. They respond to problems and situations using the means at their disposal at that time. They always obey the Church. If these were the disciplines commanded by the Church, the saints were never going to disagree with the Church. That’s part of their sanctity. Without a loving obedience, there is no holiness.

Thomas certainly lived a heroic life of virtue and died for his faith. A martyrs death wipes away all sin. His sanctity must be believed and his person must be venerate by the entire Church. That is an Ex-Cathedra command. It comes with all canonizations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

anode:

He used to be one of my favorites, too. I saw the original London production in New York, read the play and still have a paperweight-type medal of him.

However, you should find and read an authoritative biography. In the end, he wasn’t so nice–he was definitely sanitized by the play, “A Man For All Seasons”. He advocated a theocracy, and supported and enacted the execution of heretics, and I believed signed the order for one to be burned.

JReducation:

It is true that he advocated for theocracy. His book Utopia is about a society where God reigns supreme and is governed by the Revealed Truths. I don’t know about the heretic. It may or may not be true.

In any case, it takes nothing away from his sanctity. The fact is that he is a saint. A canonization is an infallible statement that must be believed and observed by all Catholics and proclaimed to non-Catholics.

We have to remember that what is objectionable to us because it may offend our sensibilities, is not necessarily objectionable to God.

Yes, when we are born makes a big difference on how we think. Our age, heavily influenced by Enlightenment thought, has lost many of its Catholic roots.

I personally continue to hold to the belief that all government constitutions should hold resolutely to the principles of the Catholic Church, for law that does not have its root in the foundation of morality and truth is necessarily flawed and evil. Law must be based on what is right, and what is right is always found in Jesus Christ.

Separation of Church and State, as it is commonly understood by secularists today, is a flawed concept. The government should submit to Rome’s spiritual and moral principles and authority. Our Constitution should have an amendment dictating that we will create and enforce no law that contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, for this to happen, the vast majority of our population would have to become Catholic, and this country would have to become a Catholic State.

Here’s the Catholic Encyclopedia’s statement on the matter:
The Catholic Encyclopedia:

. . . as a matter of objective duty, the State is bound to recognize the juridical rights of the Church in all matters spiritual whether purely so or of mixed character, and its judicial right to determine the character of matters of jurisdiction, in regard, namely, to their spiritual quality. The State, furthermore, is bound to render due worship to God, as follows from the same argument from the natural law which proves man’s obligation to external worship, namely, that man must acknowledge his dependence upon God and his subjection to Him in every capacity in which he is so dependent, and therefore not only in his private capacity as an individual but also in that public, corporate capacity whereby he and his fellow citizens constitute the State. Due worship, in the present economy, is that of the religion of Christ, entrusted to the care of the Church. The State must also protect the Church in the exercise of her functions, for the reason that the State is bound to protect all the rights of its citizens, and among these their religious rights, which as a matter of fact would be insecure and fruitless were not the Church protected. The State is even under obligation to promote the spiritual interests of the Church; for the State is bound to promote whatever by reaction naturally works for the moral development of its citizens and consequently for the internal peace of the community, and in the present condition of human nature that development is necessarily dependent upon the spiritual influence of the Church.

. . . Between the Church and a non-Christian or a Christian, but non-Catholic, State a condition of separation, as meaning a condition of indifference of the State towards the Church, is to be expected, as the foundation of the specific obligations involved in union are wanting. Such a separation for a Catholic State would be criminal, as ignoring the sacred obligations of the State.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Continued from the last post . . .

The execution of heretics can also be valid. I believe those that St. Thomas More punished with the force of law were evangelists. I’m definitely not saying all non-Catholic evangelists should be killed. I personally agree with St. Augustine that the penalties for evangelists working against the Catholic faith should be banishment. People can legitimately debate what degree of punishment should be made toward heretics. I believe that execution can be just, but I believe it should be very rare, if ever done. The Inquisition of the past did not make it a common punishment for heretics either.

I also understand that often, non-Catholic missionaries do a lot of good. For instance, Protestant missionaries preaching to non-Christians, or Muslims to pagans, and perhaps sometimes also Protestants preaching to lapsed Catholics.

According to secular historian William Durant, the Church has, historically, usually been willing to tolerate people who abandon the Catholic faith. She also has tolerated groups of heretical intellectuals who discuss their ideas. What she has not tolerated (historically, up to the last century) is the evangelistic spread of false beliefs, where large numbers of people are being affected by false religious teachings. The physical and spiritual destruction to people that these false ideas have produced, since law (separate from submission to the Church) has given them license to spread, is incalculable. Racist slavery, eugenics, abortion, contraception, witchcraft, fornication, homosexuality, and countless other evils have spread as a result of idolatry’s legal dissemination to the masses – over a billion people worldwide have been slaughtered through legalized abortion alone since the 1970s. Through its union with the Church, historically the state prohibited abortion and it happened much less frequently. The number of deaths through STDs resulting from the free love movement, and deaths from Racism, Nazism and Communism is incredible, but the slaughters of these perverse ideologies could never have spread any time in thousand years of the Medieval Ages like they did in modern times when such abominable beliefs and practices became legal. These are the result of the state having abandoned the Church, and consequently, no longer feeling itself bound by moral law, it has felt free to legalize what is evil. We have several centuries now to look back at our brokenness and destruction and see our mistakes everywhere, but our society refuses to admit that its unholy rebellion, political, economic, social and religious, was and has always been evil. We sow rebellion and reap great destruction.

Whereas falling into heresy harms only the person who falls, spreading it destroys others, and consequently, like murder, justice calls for its punishment, as the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Toulouse dictated to all the Catholic faithful. Romans 1 and Wisdom 14 condemned false religion as the root of all evil, for false religion is the source of immorality, just as true religion is the source of all righteousness.

In addition to St. Thomas More, St. Joan of Arc wanted to fight the heretics of her day, St. Augustine supported the banishment of the Arians, St. Polycarp said that atheists should be punished under law, St. Francis of Assisi wrote in his Testament that anyone in his religious order who fell into heresy should be imprisoned and handed over to due authorities for punishment, and St. Therese of Lisieux affirmed, “How gladly I would have fought in the Crusades or later against the heretics!” Many more saints shared this one outlook, which was the outlook of the Church, repeatedly stated in official documents, that people sometimes can be punished legitimately for heresy under law.

In the modern political climate, however, seeking anything other than our present concept of religious freedom, which puts Catholicism on an equal field with partially false religions, would accomplish much more harm than good. That is one of the reasons Vatican II cites for making its Declaration on Religious Freedom, affirming the Church’s support for religious freedom.

I am presently working on getting a clear understanding of how some parts of Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom falls into place with the Church’s Tradition on this matter. Some parts of the Declaration clearly are in union with Tradition, but there are other parts that I have trouble harmonizing with the Church’s historic position, so I’m still seeking for good information on this. I’ve asked my spiritual director for help and he said he’ll see what he can find. If you have any ideas about resources I might look into, I’d appreciate seeing them.

JReducation:

Secondly, saints are products of their time. Thirdly, a saint is one who has lived a truly heroic life of virtue.

Yes!

 

[JReducation]

I just wanted to speak on the Church’s Declaration on Religious Freedom. As a theologian the document is crystal clear to me, which is not always the case with the average deacon, priest or lay person. It was not the intention of the Council that it be crystal clear to this larger population. For good or bad, the Church has never written for the masses. She writes for bishops and theologians. It is then the job of the bishops and theologians to explain what the Church is saying. This is never going to go away. This is her method and the Church is a creature of habit. Our current pope is the greatest subscriber to that theory. Even his homilies are not meant to for the lay person or the parish priest. They have layers to them. It is no surprise that the statement on religious freedom should be the same.

Rather than get into an analysis of every paragraph, which is not my job here, I would like to explain why some points in the decree are different from what had been the usual prior to the decree.

First, as in all things, human understanding changes. Hopefully it become much clearer. To use Pope Benedict’s favorite position, faith and reason must always work together. It is the role of faith to guide reason. However, faith cannot guide what reason has never thought about or answer what reason has never asked. The questions about religious freedom had not been asked prior to the 18th century. This comes up with the American and French rebellions. Before anyone corrects me, I am using the terms correctly. The Catholic Church has never legitimized the American and French revolutions and to this day every Pontifical university belonging to the Vatican teaches them as rebellions, because the term revolution has a moral good as its outcome.

Anyway, it was the Americans and the French that first introduce this false separation between Church and state. It is false, because it does not exist. The truth is that the state shall not have a state religion. It has never been said that the state shall never listen to religion or be influenced by religion. In fact, it was rebellious Catholics who have defended this tooth and nail. Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Jews and Muslims have never defended this point. After the American and French rebellions there came the rise of Communism, Naziism and Fascism. They had their own ideas about the exercise of religious freedom.

The bishops of the world needed to understand how to respond to these different ideas concerning religion. These ideas came from man’s rational thought. But reason must always be guided by faith. The decree is an attempt to help reason understand what religious freedom is. It also helps reason understand why religious freedom is a gift from God, even when the religion to which a person subscribes in in conflict with Catholicism. Even when this is the case, the religious freedom of the individual always trumps the the wishes and interests of any religion.

The question is why and isn’t this in conflict with what he believed before Vatican II? The answer is so simple that as usual, it evades us. Have you ever noticed that the simple things evade us more quickly than the complex ones?

The decree on religious freedom was not the sole work of Vatican II. If truth be told, it was the work of the Franciscan school of theology, which began in the early 1200s with Francis of Assisi himself and was later developed by such men as Bonventure, Scotus, Lawrence of Brindisi, Fidelis, Anthony, Peter of Alcantara and Francis of Osuna. The Franciscans were joined by the Dominicans. In fact, it was the Jesuits who opposed the concept of religious freedom.

It the Franciscans first began to think and pray about this when Francis went to the Sultan. There is a wonderful letter that was not allowed to be shown to the laity until the later 1990s. It was written by Brother Illuminato. Brother goes into great detail about how Francis did spend days with the Sultan and tried to teach him the Christian faith, but also how Francis learned from the Muslims certain practices that he brought back to Europe and incorporated into the spirituality of the order and which are still in place to this day. This was the beginning of the Franciscans contribution to this subject.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not sure if he was the first person, but Francis was certainly the most influential person to learn from Islam and incorporate into Catholic religious life. They were simple details that have gone unnoticed by most Catholics. One simpel detail is that getting rid of kneelers and communion rails from all Franciscan chapels and oratories so that the brothers could pray in the same position as the Muslims pray. To this day, we use both postions. Another was the use of the term Allah in our prayer. This eventually disappeared except among the Spanish friars. To this day they use Allah interchangeably with God.

Francis was also impressed by the presence of many biblical truths in the Q’uran. Illuminato tells us that there were two points that impressed him very much. First their love for Mary and second their love for Abraham.

These are just little examples. But they help to understand the Franciscan school’s idea that the truth that God has revealed to the world through the Church finds its way outside the Church and that any denial or refusal to allow a person or group to practice their faith freely, could result in depriving the non-Catholics from those truths that can be found in their faith. It was never their idea to allow others to attack the Catholic faith. The idea of religious freedom was to allow others to practice their faith in peace so that they could discover the truths that could be found in their faith.

When the Americans, Fench, Marxists, Communists and Nazis came around this raised some very imprtant questions. How could Catholics be part of this new world and at the same time protect their faith. It was the intent of the Council to show several thing.

Religion is not a thread to the true faith. The real threat is ideologies. When religious is not free of ideologies it becomes dangerous. Relious beliefs, of all faiths, must exist and be practiced free of ideologies.

Many of the great truths that have been revealed through the Church have found their way to other faiths, because the Church is both temporal and transcendent. Therefore, nothing that the Church has received remaind locked up inside the Church. Salvation comes through the Church. Hense “no salvation outside the Church.” However, faith tells us that the Church is like her master, she transcends space and time. Therefore, she can bring others into communion with her for their salvation, even when that communion is less than perfect. Through those strands, Christ can save. This was not a question before, because the situation of the time of the Council of Florence was that of Catholics turning into heretics. By the 19th and 20 century we’re no longer looking at heretics. We’re looking at men and women who were born into a ecclesial community. They aren ot heretics, even though their founders were. What they believe does not condemn them, because they have not turned away from the Church. They never belonged to the Catholic Church, unlike a heretic does.

This raises the question. “Do they ahve a right to believe what they believe?” The answer came back affirmative. This was faith enlightening reason. Reason asked the question, faith respondds with a resoundding “yes”. They have the right to believe what they have received from their forefathers. It’s part of their heritage. They also have a right to receive from us our understanding, provided that we never deny their right to what they inherited.

For lack of space, I can’t go into what was behind the document and what the Church wanted her bishops and theologians to teach. But this should give you an idea.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I just wanted to speak on the Church’s Declaration on Religious Freedom. As a theologian the document is crystal clear to me, which is not always the case with the average deacon, priest or lay person. It was not the intention of the Council that it be crystal clear to this larger population. For good or bad, the Church has never written for the masses. She writes for bishops and theologians. It is then the job of the bishops and theologians to explain what the Church is saying. This is never going to go away. This is her method and the Church is a creature of habit. Our current pope is the greatest subscriber to that theory. Even his homilies are not meant to for the lay person or the parish priest. They have layers to them. It is no surprise that the statement on religious freedom should be the same.

This is wonderful, as far as I’m concerned . I’m very glad the Church does as she does!

First, as in all things, human understanding changes. Hopefully it become much clearer. To use Pope Benedict’s favorite position, faith and reason must always work together. It is the role of faith to guide reason. However, faith cannot guide what reason has never thought about or answer what reason has never asked.

However, I do have a question about this. In Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, he condemned the following:

“in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” (No. 77)

“every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (No. 15) and that “it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” (No. 78)

These condemnations appear, at least on the surface, to run contrary to the Declaration on Religious Freedom, even while appearing to speak about the same matters. Could you clarify for me, please, how both these statements and the Decree are harmonious?

The questions about religious freedom had not been asked prior to the 18th century. This comes up with the American and French rebellions. Before anyone corrects me, I am using the terms correctly. The Catholic Church has never legitimized the American and French revolutions and to this day every Pontifical university belonging to the Vatican teaches them as rebellions, because the term revolution has a moral good as its outcome.

I’m really, really glad to learn that! I came to this same conclusion about the American rebellion while I was converting to Catholicism, but I didn’t know the Church teaches the same. That really is a blessing to know.

Anyway, it was the Americans and the French that first introduce this false separation between Church and state. It is false, because it does not exist. The truth is that the state shall not have a state religion.

What do you mean by “have a state religion”? And do the historical Catholic States, the union of which with the Church is defended in the Catholic Encyclopedia, qualify as governments that had a state religion?

It has never been said that the state shall never listen to religion or be influenced by religion. In fact, it was rebellious Catholics who have defended this tooth and nail. Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Jews and Muslims have never defended this point. After the American and French rebellions there came the rise of Communism, Naziism and Fascism. They had their own ideas about the exercise of religious freedom.

The bishops of the world needed to understand how to respond to these different ideas concerning religion. These ideas came from man’s rational thought. But reason must always be guided by faith.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The decree is an attempt to help reason understand what religious freedom is. It also helps reason understand why religious freedom is a gift from God, even when the religion to which a person subscribes in in conflict with Catholicism. Even when this is the case, the religious freedom of the individual always trumps the the wishes and interests of any religion.

The question is why and isn’t this in conflict with what he believed before Vatican II? The answer is so simple that as usual, it evades us. Have you ever noticed that the simple things evade us more quickly than the complex ones?

. . . These are just little examples. But they help to understand the Franciscan school’s idea that the truth that God has revealed to the world through the Church finds its way outside the Church and that any denial or refusal to allow a person or group to practice their faith freely, could result in depriving the non-Catholics from those truths that can be found in their faith. It was never their idea to allow others to attack the Catholic faith. The idea of religious freedom was to allow others to practice their faith in peace so that they could discover the truths that could be found in their faith.

So, are you saying that Vatican II permits people to worship according to their religions in peace, but leaves room for the validity of using civil law to prevent non-Catholics evangelizing Catholics, or performing other religious acts (such as public celebrations, which I believe at times the Church has supported the state in forbidding) which could lead Catholics to convert to a partially false religion?

JReducation:

Religion is not a threat to the true faith. The real threat is ideologies. When religious is not free of ideologies it becomes dangerous. Relious beliefs, of all faiths, must exist and be practiced free of ideologies.

How do you distinguish between a false religious belief and an ideology?

All beliefs that divide people from the Church are harmful. For instance, if someone hears the Church’s teaching that we live one life and then immediately are judged and go to our eternal destiny, but rejects this belief because he believes in reincarnation, then if he knows enough about the truth on this matter, he can do his soul deep spiritual harm through this false belief and through the errors of his fathers. His false religious belief could very well destroy him, because he prefers a lie to the truth.

JReducation:

This raises the question. “Do they ahve a right to believe what they believe?” The answer came back affirmative. This was faith enlightening reason. Reason asked the question, faith respondds with a resoundding “yes”. They have the right to believe what they have received from their forefathers. It’s part of their heritage. They also have a right to receive from us our understanding, provided that we never deny their right to what they inherited.

I don’t like the word “right” much in this case because it seems to imply that there is validity to holding false beliefs. In fact, though, there is only a lack of culpability for what is innately wrong, for holding to a lie is wrong, though in this case not sinful. That’s similar to how Abraham having multiple wives was wrong, though I suppose one could say he had a “right” to it because of his invincible ignorance. I understand what you mean . . .

When I was converting from Protestantism, I saw the deep darkness in every belief I held that contradicted Catholicism. These divisions were plainly very evil, and it was bad for me to be holding to them, though in most of these errors, I was not personally culpable because I was invincibly ignorant.

I agree with you that the situation has changed from what it was in the past, that today people born into ecclesial communities aren’t all “obstinate heretics,” but generally are only “material heretics,” to use Aquinas’ terminology. And that is far better. They are frequently saved through their faith in Jesus Christ, through the rays of light shining from the Church that they continue to receive into their hearts.

You are helping to clarify Vatican II’s consistency with the historical Church teaching, and I’m very grateful. This issue has been bothering me ever since my conversion. I’m eager to learn more about Vatican II’s teaching, and I pray that the Lord may wipe out all my uncertainties on the matter, through His grace. Thank-you for your posts on these matters, and I look forward to reading your replies to these.

By the way, do you have any book or article recommendations that discuss this issue, which might help me to understand these matters more thoroughly?

 

[anode]

It just depends how much you want to buy into the cult of saints. This is one thing that Protestants never have done. Some, mainly Anglicans and Lutherans, honor the original apostles and others as saints, and name as non-canonized saints others who were heroic in their actions, but they don’t make a practice of prayers, medals, novenas, etc., as a general rule–variations are up to the individual, of course. A close review of many of the saints’ lives reveal actions which we wouldn’t countenance now, as they were inhumane (Fr. Serra flogging Indians), or bigoted(St. Vicente Ferrer despised Jews), or masochistic (St. Rose of Lima’s self-tortures).

If you are going to honor an individual as a saint, I think that it pays to study the life of that individual. The OP sounds as if he had the same sources re Thomas More as I did, and didn’t appear to know the whole story, bits of which I read years ago. I don’t have references re his life, but they shouldn’t be hard to find with the web/google/amazon and all. I haven’t bothered researching it as it doesn’t matter a whole lot to me now.

I am just saying that if you select a certain saint to emulate or pray to, you might consider knowing more about that individual. You don’t have to approve or agree with everything, but at least be informed.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

It just depends how much you want to buy into the cult of saints. This is one thing that Protestants never have done. Some, mainly Anglicans and Lutherans, honor the original apostles and others as saints, and name as non-canonized saints others who were heroic in their actions, but they don’t make a practice of prayers, medals, novenas, etc., as a general rule–variations are up to the individual, of course. A close review of many of the saints’ lives reveal actions which we wouldn’t countenance now, as they were inhumane (Fr. Serra flogging Indians), or bigoted(St. Vicente Ferrer despised Jews), or masochistic (St. Rose of Lima’s self-tortures).

If you are going to honor an individual as a saint, I think that it pays to study the life of that individual. The OP sounds as if he had the same sources re Thomas More as I did, and didn’t appear to know the whole story, bits of which I read years ago. I don’t have references re his life, but they shouldn’t be hard to find with the web/google/amazon and all. I haven’t bothered researching it as it doesn’t matter a whole lot to me now.

I am just saying that if you select a certain saint to emulate or pray to, you might consider knowing more about that individual. You don’t have to approve or agree with everything, but at least be informed.

I don’t believe that we Catholics look upon the saints as being perfect (our Blessed Mother excepted). They lived lives. Perfect? No. Degrees of magnitude better than mine, though? You bet. Expecting them to be perfect would be silly. They would have no value. How in the heck can I, a sinner, use a perfect human (Blessed Mother again the exception) as a guide?

I like that they were human and imperfect, actually. Makes them more approachable.
These people of heroic virtue, but who still sinned, are great models for Catholics, you see. We realize that we are imperfect and need salvation every day

 

[anode]

I don’t believe that we Catholics look upon the saints as being perfect (our Blessed Mother excepted). They lived lives. Perfect? No. Degrees of magnitude better than mine, though? You bet. Expecting them to be perfect would be silly. They would have no value. How in the heck can I, a sinner, use a perfect human (Blessed Mother again the exception) as a guide?

I like that they were human and imperfect, actually. Makes them more approachable.
These people of heroic virtue, but who still sinned, are great models for Catholics, you see. We realize that we are imperfect and need salvation every day

No, I don’t expect perfection. But I don’t like the idea of being asked to venerate people who have done things that I have never done and that I hope that I would never do.

That’s all.

 

[JReducation]

Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, he condemned the following:

“in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” (No. 77)

Pius was describing an error in modern thinking. Vatican II does not deny this error. What Vatican II says is that no one has the moral right to force another person to be a Catholic. There is a big difference between knowing that the best course of action for any state is to follow the Catholic faith and forcing people to become Catholic. The state can follow the moral law as it has been revealed through the Church, without forcing its citizens to convert to the Catholic faith. Conversion is not the duty of the state. That comes through the gift of faith, not through legislation.

“every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (No. 15) and that “it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” (No. 78)

His belief was that those of other faiths, who entered a Catholic country, posed some kind of threat to Catholics. There is some truth to this, but not the kind of threat that would justify penalizing them for practicing their faith. There is always a threat of contamination. But the Church has the same concern regarding the contact between the laity and the monks and mendicants. She has always discouraged us from having friends who are lay people. But we have never been encouraged to be unkind or hostile toward the laity, just to be cautious. The point here is that Pius statement lends itself to be misinterpreted. All who knew him knew that he was a very kind man and would never have approved any kind of hostility toward people of other faiths. I believe that this why John XXIII removed this statement from circulation. John XXIII had lived through Naziism and Communism. He had seen religious discrimination and its horrors. The popes who followed him were also products of that era in history. Remember what I said, saints are products of their time and place in history. Pius had not yet seen what the future popes would see.

I believe that we Americans look at ourselves with awe and admiration. As a result we think of everything that we have done as good, almost like God on the last day of creation. However, the rest of the Catholic Church does not have the same opinion of America or Americans. The fact is that even good Catholics who are Americans do not hold the USA in awe. There are many things that we have done well. There are some horrible things too. Just like any other nation in the world, we have contributed good and done evil. We tend to overlook the evil that we have done.

The greatest evil that we have contributed to the world is spelled out by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae and he spells it out calling on his Apostolic Authority. We have made democracy and end rather than a means. Therefore, we promote, tolerate and ignore all kinds of evils to protect our democratic system. For example, we want to allow politicians to vote according to the mind of their constituents, even when the constituents want something immoral. That’s protecting democracy, not the soul of the country.

What do you mean by “have a state religion”? And do the historical Catholic States, the union of which with the Church is defended in the Catholic Encyclopedia, qualify as governments that had a state religion?

The Constitution of the USA and that of many countries say that the nation shall not have an official state religion. For example, Israel, United Kingdom, the Muslin nations and a few others all have state religions. I was saying that the truth is that we (USA) do not have a state religion. But this does not mean that religion is ignored.

As to those countries that have a state religion, the Church is not opposed to this. Americans are opposed to it. The Church defends the right of Israel to be Jewish state, Saudi Arabia to be a Muslim state, the United Kingdom to be an Anglican state and Malta to be a Catholic state. What the Church opposes is the oppression of people who do not belong to the state religion. You cannot imprison someone because they’re Catholic and living in Israel or Jewish and living in Malta. The Church says that this is immoral. For example, Malta is Catholic. Therefore, there is no divorce. Contraceptives are not sold in that country. Abortion is illegal. Same-sex unions are not allowed.

However, the Church does not allow the governent to penalize those Maltese who go some place else to get a divorce, contraceptives, abortions or same-sex marriages. The Church considers these things wrong. But she also recognizes that the authorities do not have the right to penalize for something that is done some place else, even if the person comes back to the country. These are Maltese citizens, but the state has no jurisdiction over what they do outside of the state’s borders.

Also, the Church is the first to impose on the Maltese government a moral law that forbids any discrimination or prohibition against Islam and Judaism is Malta. There are some Muslims and Jews in Malta. They are to be granted the same rights as any other human beings. This is the meaning of religious freedom. The rights of the citizens must be respected as long as they do not violate the moral law of the Church. It is not against Catholicism to be Jewish or Muslim. The Church believes that Jews and Muslims have a special place in salvation history. It is against Catholicism to allow abortion, contraception, same-sex unions. This is abuse of religious freedom…

Hope this helps.

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

It just depends how much you want to buy into the cult of saints. This is one thing that Protestants never have done. Some, mainly Anglicans and Lutherans, honor the original apostles and others as saints, and name as non-canonized saints others who were heroic in their actions, but they don’t make a practice of prayers, medals, novenas, etc., as a general rule–variations are up to the individual, of course. A close review of many of the saints’ lives reveal actions which we wouldn’t countenance now, as they were inhumane (Fr. Serra flogging Indians), or bigoted(St. Vicente Ferrer despised Jews), or masochistic (St. Rose of Lima’s self-tortures).

If you are going to honor an individual as a saint, I think that it pays to study the life of that individual. The OP sounds as if he had the same sources re Thomas More as I did, and didn’t appear to know the whole story, bits of which I read years ago. I don’t have references re his life, but they shouldn’t be hard to find with the web/google/amazon and all. I haven’t bothered researching it as it doesn’t matter a whole lot to me now.

I am just saying that if you select a certain saint to emulate or pray to, you might consider knowing more about that individual. You don’t have to approve or agree with everything, but at least be informed.

But you must be very careful here not to cross the line over into heresy. You may disagree with a saint’s actions. But the decree of canonization explicitly makes it an order to all Catholics to venerate the saint and acknolwedge that he is a saint (in heaven).

I point this out, because we don’t all have devotions to the same saints for different reasons. But we must never minimize a saint. That would be contrary to an infallible statement made by the Church. All of the saints that you mentioned are in fact in heaven, did in fact live heroic Christian lives and did in fact live lives of virtue over and beyond what is expected of any Christian. That’s how they became saints. Catholics must acknowledge this, even if we do not have a devotion to them for whatever reason.

I can say that St. Rose of Lima’s penances were over the top. But Church teaching also binds me to say that St. Rose of Lima is deserving of my veneration because she lived a life of virtue that is over and beyond what is typical for most Christians.

Our own Holy Father Francis lived a very ascetic life. But there is a threat of excommunication over any Franciscan who dares criticize it. Pope Nicholas IV imposed this on the three Franciscan orders when he declared Francis to be the Mirror of Perfection. Pope Nicholas was a Franciscan and on one occasion Francis had the Vicar General excommunicated for publicly disagreeing with him. The end of that story is that the Vicar General recanted, did a great deal of penance, came back and lived a holy life. He eventually became the Superior General and died and holy life. Francis saved his soul by asking Pope Honorius to impose such a penance on the Vicar.

We have to be very careful with the advice that we give people regarding the veneration of saints. Saints often did things that we do not understand. It does not make our understandng superior. Whatever we say about saints must always conclude with the infallible teachings of the Church. They are saints. Their lives are worthy of imitation and veneration. Their heroism outdoes anything that we have done.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

No, I don’t expect perfection. But I don’t like the idea of being asked to venerate people who have done things that I have never done and that I hope that I would never do.

That’s all.

Carried to it’s logical conclusion, you could not venerate/honor anyone, then. Not your parents, not your pastor, no one.