By compromising on Catholic doctrine on the relationship between Church and State, Bishop Robert Barron can please neither Catholics nor liberals. Better to please God, regardless of the consequences.
Do you realize that the whole concept of a state supported religion led to the demise of Christian faith in Europe? When Protestants persecute Catholics, Catholics persecute Catholics, Protestants persecute each other, and both groups persecute Jews to the point of death for centuries, the name of a holy, righteous God is dishonored.
“Christendom” is nothing but an excuse for authoritarian Catholic political power. If you think the church needs that kind of power to thrive, I suggest you read the first 12 chapters of the Book of Acts.
"Do you realize that the whole concept of a state supported religion led to the demise of Christian faith in Europe?"
You're leaving out a lot of steps after the European Wars of Religion, good sir. It is too simplistic an analysis.
"If you think the church needs that kind of power to thrive"
That the Catholic Church "needs" state support to "thrive", I distinguish as follows: that the Church is *incapable* of thriving without political support, DENIED; that the Church benefits from a government that acknowledges and supports the duties men have towards our Creator, to Jesus Christ, and to His Church, CONCEDED.
The laws promulgated and enforced by any given nation reflect a moral paradigm; and that paradigm SHOULD be one rooted in the moral paradigm of Jesus Christ, and His Apostolic Church.
Glad to see a levelheaded catholic. As a corollary to what you said the massive state abuses of the control of the Church were precisely what led to the “rational” and “simple” deism of the French Revolution. The current Vatican II framing of Church and State is very wise for this reason.
Neither the State nor the Church should control each other. That isn't the point of the traditional conception of the relationship between the two.
"There are two swords." The temporal power, like the spiritual power, is sovereign within its sphere. But the temporal power is subordinated to the spiritual power, but not in the sense implied by language of one controlling the other.
For example, the laws of a nation must be "negatively Christian" in the sense of "not contrary to the Gospel or right reason" but it doesn't follow that the Church is controlling the state, e.g., by getting involved with setting the level of taxation or whatever else (beyond, of course, pointing out excesses).
In addition, the state is indeed obliged to recognise and worship God in accordance with the true religion, which is that of the Catholic Church, and to facilitate the citizens reaching the supernatural end to which they have been ordered by Almighty God. But again, this isn't the Church controlling the state.
Some of the commenters here seem to be blaming the Church and the traditional teaching for provoking the sins of some of her worst enemies (e.g., the partisans of the French revolution), which is a shockingly liberal way to approach this matter, but does reveal a lot about the presuppositions of our interlocutors.
So the problem of religious liberty is that it permits individual choice to worship untrue religions? Or the problem of religious liberty doesn’t “support the duties of men” towards our creator and his Church as state above by Mr. Brazil? Or both?
Coming on here denying or attacking Catholic doctrine (as in your previous post) and insulting the Church of Rome in the way you did above results in a temporary ban, I'm afraid.
Sir, I don’t have a deep understanding of religious liberty. The basic idea is that no religion can or should be the established religion of the state or nation. So that precludes Catholic, but it also precludes others, the worst being a formally Jewish, Protestant, or Muslim state. Do I have that right?
Am I correct, in a sense, that America is informally a Jewish state as it seems clear the Jews have succeeded in degrading the laws, policies, and cultural in America. So there can be an informal state sponsored religion too?
But I don’t understand how we can have a Catholic state in a country that has a first amendment prohibition. Can you address that?
In my mind we can have a Catholic state only by having a powerful Catholic base through a strong majority. That is something that isn’t enshrined in law but in faith. Such a majority should direct the government towards a Catholic agenda that then affects law, culture, and institutions.
I experience a great deal of frustration and difficulty in talking to Protestant friends who would rebel at the idea of living in an officially Catholic America. In fact, one of my friends says he hates the neocons, identifies as an America first Trump supporter, but then goes on to cheerlead for Trump‘s attack on Iran. taking this one fellow as an example, I discovered that I was arguing with a guy who is both a Zionist and a defender of Freemasonry. The guy hasn’t tried to seriously understand the historical position against Zionism and Freemasonry because he’s admittedly too lazy to research the European roots of those entities that have put America in the pickle that she is in today, and not just America, but all of Western civilization. I want to tell him he’s a nut, but I have to be polite.
If you could address these questions it would be helpful.
Another excellent article. The truth is relatively simple when it comes down to it. Why are so many people--Catholics--attempting to obfuscate it? Keep doing what you are doing. Clarity is key.
I’m with the Bishop on this one. I don’t want our Republic to establish a religion, because I’m afraid I won’t like it. For the same reason, I do t believe teachers should impose prayer in public schools. On the other hand, the government should not restrict lawful religious practice, either. The Sodality of St. Monica, for example, should be allowed on campus, just any queer or Islamic club is. Pope Pius IX, spoke in an entirely different constitutional system than ours, and his utterances were not those of doctrine. Although I am a traditional, conservative Catholic, I am also schooled in the jurisprudence of this nation, and that jurisprudence does not allow it to become an officially Roman Catholic nation, no matter our theoretical longings.
You might be a conservative “Catholic,” but you are not a traditional (ie., true) one, since the view you just endorsed is condemned by the Church. As regards “the jurisprudence of this nation,” it is inimical to Catholic social doctrine, born of Masonic and revolutionary principles, as every real/traditional Catholic knows, and it is to these false doctrines which you have given your allegiance over those of the Church and Christ.
No offense, but, honestly, how much thought have you put into that? That is square and line the exact position of the status quo. It's not at all breaking barriers. It can be summarized in your phrase "(you) might not like it". Not to sound crass, but when are we supposed to like things and then base analysis around that. We don't pay taxes or go to work because it's primarily something we like. It may be, but that's not how the world, any legal system etc works. We put in a little work and we get something better out of it. There just has to be a better standard. Maybe pick the 2000 year old one. It doesn't bother me if we don't have a religious state, in any regard, even though it'd be an absolute nightmare (as it always is), but I'm not one to say the exact status quo should be repeated simply because I might not like something. There are other governing structures outside a nation-state, but i can't imagine arguing against a religion being foundational to a state.
I’m not offended. I’m always amenable to being corrected. I do acknowledge the deistic and, perhaps, Masonic, influences on our founders. I would prefer the Catholic monarchy of St. Louis. But we don’t have that, and never will, before the end of time. I have not put “a lot” of thought into it, but have put in “a bit,” during the course of trying cases with religious implications, and discussing those implications with co-counsel, and later, other judges. When I write, “I might not like it,” I use the vernacular. I prefer simplicity of expression, because, usually, it’s not that things are too complicated. It’s usually that they are too clear for comfort. Given our existing constitution, which includes all the ways it has been corrupted, which will not change, no matter how much we wish them to, you have not established that imposing a state religion is a good idea.
Ig idk what the distinguishing factor is since you've already admitted that a state religion is a good idea unless "impose" is the operative word. If it is, I'm not sure how to go about that, but I'm perfectly fine with a state religion. Having a state religion isn't exclusive of freedom of religion and I have no issue seeking a state religion of rcc, eo. I don't think the head of a nation-state is where the fulcrum of a state necessarily is, so I seek something else, but I definitely take my religion to be beneficial. I take an abstract "freedom" to be ambiguous enough to be filled by whatever is most digestible to the population in content (even if it wasn't meant to be sanctioned as a religion).
Edit: to be clear, I think "impose" is arbitrary and relative and religion, orideology, is always going to be present, and there never will be a neutral area for that, and I think Christianity is most concerned with individual well-being. What we consider to be the biggest strides in human "freedom" or rights is uniquely under a Christian framework. I'm not sure the arbitrariness of "impose" can be discussed in and by itself. I don't see what's wrong with having a Christian ideology be the basis of law for the state. The declaration of independence doesn't seem to have issue with it, and the founding fathers, like John Adams, promoted and wrote that into state constitution, which had the effect of ending slavery a century before the Civil war. I really don't see an issue with John Adams-tier state religions.
Lots of points, there. England has a state religion. A lot of good it has done them. I’m in mind of England because the English common law was based on the Judeo-Christian tradition—basically, most of the Ten Commandments, with a little law and order thrown in. As late as my generation, law students learned that common law. Sadly, the nihilists/anti-natalists/leftists/Marxists/ and their ilk have amended it to death. I still see the common law as the ideal, in my secular life, and the law of the old Testament as brought to fruition in Jesus Christ as the true law, and the one I try to live by, against all odds. Perhaps I am too dualistic. That is the way I see this world, though. It will end, and Jesus’s law will be established. Then, if I’m still feeling split, I’ll be in trouble. Hope this makes sense.
It does; I get it. Even Jews turned away from the law and were punished, but there are definitely strains of thought which push past others (to their demise, past Christianity), and I think by codifying the worst intentions of man with "freedom", and then bandaging it with negative laws, we end up in a position where you have freedom vs "freedom in Christ".
Edit: also it's a tale of two state constitutions there as the deist Jefferson wrote the Virginia state constitution. It's about aligning ourselves with God through freedom in Christ.
The point isn't the state establishment of just any old religion. The point is for the state to recognise and establish the true religion.
Recognising and establishing a false religion does at least recognise the principle, which is good, but the failures of Anglican England hardly count against the true application of the true principle.
Even failure of Catholic countries wouldn't do that. The obligation of the state establish the true religion isn't primarily to achieve any particular good, nor is it a guarantee that the country will be protected from Reformation and revolutions.
It's because it is the DUTY of the state to recognise God, worship him in accordance with how he has revealed himself and wars to be worshipped, and to assist men in reaching the supernatural end to which they have been ordered.
Catholic support for religious freedom does not begin with Vatican II. Selectively quoting popes from the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Church was besieged by liberal and radical socialist opponents and justly lashing out against them, does not mean that you have provided an accurate overview of Church history on this issue. Freedom of conscience was always defended by the early Church. For nearly a century after Constantine, the Church and paganism lived side by side in public life, tolerating each other. Early restrictions on paganism, such as the ban on public sacrifices, were meant to ensure a religiously neutral public sphere that Christians and pagans could share without Christians being contaminated by sacrificial offerings. Freedom of conscience and practice was the guiding principle here, not religious domination. This only changed in the final decades of the Roman Empire.
"Selectively quoting popes from the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Church was besieged by liberal and radical socialist opponents and justly lashing out against them, does not mean that you have provided an accurate overview of Church history on this issue."
I think if you adopt this kind of line of argument, then—aside from it being false—you leave yourself vulnerable to attacks from other modernists on issues that you might still hold onto, whether that be the Church's teaching on abortion, contraception, or whatever else marriage issues. The same goes for your historical method.
Also, I'll wait for you to prove that we were "selectively quoting" the 19th-20th century popes.
As far as I see you cite Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI, Gregory XVI, and Leo XIII. All great Popes, but all from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are they not?
As far as modernism goes, you are correct that the historical method is limited, especially when it applies to the dogmatic claims of the Church regarding God and His revelation. The social and political policies of the Church though are very much a matter of historical context and study. Acknowledging that the Church has at times recommended different policies towards other faiths depending on circumstances does not mean that her claim to be the one true source of faith is any less accurate.
I see. Your message seemed to me to indicate I was selectively quoting from their work, rather than from popes in general. In any case, I think it is vexatious to say that the approach taken is faulty for being time-bound etc. This is not how the magisterium works. Further, the teaching of those popes was not presented as time-bound, not at all.
"Freedom of conscience and practice was the guiding principle here, not religious domination. "
I think the guiding principle behind why the early Christians refrained from participating in pagan sacrifices was to avoid displeasing God and provoking scandal, actually.
"But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils...But if any man say: This has been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake that told it, and for conscience' sake. Conscience, I say, not thy own, but the other's. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? ...Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God. Be without offence to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the church of God: As I also in all things please all men, not seeking that which is profitable to myself, but to many, that may be saved." 1 Corinthians 10:20-21, 28-29, 31-33 (DRB)
On account of considerations I will give, this is in my opinion a scandalous and ignorant, not to mention an attention seeking and melodramatic article. Not only is Bishop Barron being incredibly wise and cautious, and as I intend to show, is not condemned by the church at all. The point is that he is not acting against the original sense in which the condemnations were written, here is why:
Firstly, because in america there is simply no organ of the state that would be capable of enforcing a truly catholic (state) religion. This is from the lack of legitimacy of our very morally lost democracy to do so with Justice. For a painful instance of how this could be abused, simply turn your gaze to the “civic church” of the French Revolution…if you actually think the US government (in which our society is even more ignorant about natural law and virtue) could institute a state-sponsored form of Catholicism as of now, you are simply delusional. Bishop Barron rightly acknowledges that we do not live in a Catholic mileu, but rather a deeply Protestant and Secular one in which a state-sponsored religion is simply not feasible to institute. This is why we should focus on building up the Church organically and converting Hearts to Christ, instead of day-dreaming about imposing it in such a way that scandalizes many who already dislike the Church.
Secondly, and like the first, if a state religion were brought about in america, it would just be protestant. Thus, Catholicism would have no rights and we get to live out the Anglican Reformation or wars of religion again. Hey but huge win for Catholicism, I guess?
Thirdly, the implicit belief of the popes who wrote these condemnations was that the Ecclesiastical and Civic arms MUST be separate things, YET in harmonious cooperation with each other. Bishop Barron therefore does not contradict the sense in which the condemnations were written because they were written for the context of organized Monarchies, not Democratic and modern states.
Lastly, consider that most Catholic state religions were so corrupt that it naturally led to a deep corruption of the Catholic Hierarchy, causing antagonism to the Church, widespread social divisions and eventually rationalism and atheism. State influence over the Church in France for example naturally led people to (falsely) see the Church and the King as their oppressors due to their lack of true discipline. It is not as good as you think. I met a Polish woman who said that because the State and Catholicism are so combined, it is simply a matter of custom, not devotion. She told me she learned more about her faith in the US, and this is precisely because we do not have a “state religion”
For these reasons I think this article is psuedo-intellectual and worse, psuedo-traditional and simply focused on controversy and getting attention, not The Gospel of Christ. I admire Barron’s wisdom and fortitude amidst so many enemies, and we should support Him because He is a beacon of Catholic Truth and Culture in this country and will bear good fruit.
My man, if you get a moment's pause from praising the supposed wisdom of Bishop Barron, I suggest you read the text of Fr Ryan in the article, which I believe answers your points adequately.
“What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group.
It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation.
While all this is very true in logic and in theory, the event of its practical realization in any State or country is so remote in time and in probability that no practical man will let it disturb his equanimity or affect his attitude toward those who differ from him in religious faith.”
Ironically, Fr. Ryan’s quote is nearly exactly what Barron is saying, and also 1:1 with Vatican II’s formulation of Religious Liberty.
As Fr. Ryan says, it is simply true that we do not have the ability to formalize a state Catholic religion yet, and so we should focus on building up the Church and spreading the Gospel. Which, praise God, is exactly what Barron is doing.
"Also, since you also expressly reject Vatican II, I am obliged by faith to say that you promote schism, heresy, and scandal. May the Lord correct you."
In fact, I'm just exercising my "right to religious freedom." Those who accept Vatican II are obliged to recognise the following from Dignitatis Humanae:
"The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed."
Further:
"Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others."
Accusing us of "promoting schism, heresy and scandal" for refusing to accept the novelties and errors of Vatican II—aside from being rich, given his defence of Bishop Barron's rejection of established religion in America—"might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy" and is thus "abuse of one's right and a violation of others."
For this violation of our "rights" to religious freedom, it's the naughty corner for this gentleman for the next 30 days, in accordance with Dignitatis Humanae and our comments policy. Good day.
I'm sorry you feel that way. You needn't. However, perhaps the idea of state naturalism and indifferentism to the truth of Christ should be more frightening to you, along with the idea of a state which in its essence is incompatible with what are the duties of all men, namely to recognise God and the true religion—whatever you think that religion is.
Vatican II didn't formally change much, but these two things:
1. the theology of the bishopric in relation to the Pope (the college of bishops was also directly willed by Christ to possess the keys, but only cum Petro et Sub Petro) and to the gifts bestowed on bishops at ordination not being solely due to the authority of the Pope
2. The human person does possess some religious freedom by right, insofar as they should be free to pursue the call of God, but not in the sense that establishes religious indifference, nor in the sense that means it is per se wrong to have a Catholic country, only recognizing that such a state would have to respect some basic elements of religious freedom
Between these two, the first one settled a dispute that was much more ancient. I say dispute, but really the council accepted the position that had long been discarded. From Aquinas even to Pius XII, the theology that all validity of sacramental power depended solely on the Jurisdiction of the Holy Father was accepted. The council overturned it, and indeed it was the most controversial proposal of the whole council. It led to the greatest disputes and took the longest to resolve, and likely would have received more non placet votes than Dignitas Humanitae if Paul VI hadn't agreed to add an appendix to the document explaining the new teaching on the bishopric in thomistic terms.
Yet, we almost never hear anyone attacking this first point as a betrayal. We do hear those attacking the second. And it is certainly true that the first change constitutes a far greater deviation from what had been accepted by the Church over a greater period of time, and a more essential component, as it related to a core part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the nature of the Church.
It's also certainly true that Dignitas Humanitae did change some Catholic teaching, much of which can be found cited in this article. The council never explicitly said it's overturning anything, but it was clear. Pope Benedict XVI, during his Pontificate, in some address even noted that Vatican II implicitly overturned some of the teachings referenced in the syllabus of errors. I believe the term he used was "counter syllabus."
I say all this because it seems striking to think that a relatively young doctrine (not dogma) of the Church could never theoretically be rejected later on. The church has done this many times throughout her history. Never on matters of dogma, but in doctrines that derive from the dogma, of which "religious freedom in the political sphere" surely is included. Not all doctrines are infallible, even if they are, at the time, authentic Catholic teaching.
There are many other instances we could list, namely:
- the Chinese Rites controversy
- the necessity of the words of institution and that the words of institution are without question the exact moment the Host is consecrated (in the early 19th or late 18th century the Pope condemned what had been ancient practice - this has since been reversed/restored post VII. This is because apostolic Tradition in the Eastern rites openly contradicts the 1800 view)
- the necessity of the phrase "mysterium fidei" in the words of institution, which Pope Innocent III declared as being of apostolic origin, yet even St. Bellarmine rejected this
All in all, the Council didn't formally reject everything the popes had said about religious freedom. They still adhered to the idea that there can be no religious indifferentism, nor an absolute right to religious freedom, nor can it contravene society's obligations to promote the true faith.
Underlying all of these pieces is the implicit belief that idea contained within 10 encyclicals could never ever be called incorrect, and yet it is absolutely certain that this has happened before. What makes the case of religious freedom even more unique, however, is that the church didn't overturn the prior teachings on it, but developed a new teaching on the dignity of man's search for God, based on the Tradition of the church, that implicated that some of the prior teachings on the topic of freedom were no longer tenable. Not because the church merely said (or clandestinely said) these are wrong, go about as you wish, but rather that it developed a legitimate Catholic teaching that had implications against other teachings.
Nor can one say this make us modernists. Modernists reject dogma and see everything as naturalistic, historical processes. Catholics must believe in the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, but also may recognize that God does permit that the Church, among lesser doctrines, can make mistakes, but none of which can compromise her eternal purpose, Dogma, and Gospel message.
Ultimately, there are no grounds to critique Bishop Barron as regards authentic Catholic teaching, here. Much of the teaching about bringing society and governments to recognize the Kingship of Christ remain truly valid -- it's just that Vatican II taught that this also includes a limited freedom of conscience as regarding man's search for truth in religion. indeed, in just the last few days, Pope Leo XIV noted that as regards the political state of the world, society must be moved to accept the natural law of God and, in the words of St. Augustine, reject the love of self and move to the love of God. No matter what any particular priest said in 1922, the bishops alone convened in sacred council taught otherwise, not by arbitrarily rejecting old teaching, but by expanding other doctrine and putting the others in proper relationship.
There are certainly members of Congress in the US who have no problem in combining state and religion (albeit a false religion) when justifying their policies which not only affect the US but have ramifications possibly affecting the whole world. I'm speaking here of senator Ted Cruz who based on a false interpretation of scripture from his erroneous bible thinks that he can plunge the world into war and believe he's serving God. False religions lead not only to spiritual death but physical death when brought to bear in politics. The Catholic religion alone has the antidote to all the misfortunes that enevitably befall mankind when it is abandoned. It is the Kingship of Christ alone established and recognised on earth that can save us from the effects of these errors and the Catholic Church alone IS the kingdom of Christ on earth.
Freedom in itself is hopeless, and freedom in Christ requires us to carry our cross. Freedom in Christ is not liberal freedom of religion. We don't need freedom of religion to have freedom in Christ. We need hope laid down at creation through and for Jesus.
Note to Bishop Barron: Judaism is the unofficial state religion in the United States.
Western civilization. Formerly known as Christendom
Do you realize that the whole concept of a state supported religion led to the demise of Christian faith in Europe? When Protestants persecute Catholics, Catholics persecute Catholics, Protestants persecute each other, and both groups persecute Jews to the point of death for centuries, the name of a holy, righteous God is dishonored.
“Christendom” is nothing but an excuse for authoritarian Catholic political power. If you think the church needs that kind of power to thrive, I suggest you read the first 12 chapters of the Book of Acts.
"Do you realize that the whole concept of a state supported religion led to the demise of Christian faith in Europe?"
You're leaving out a lot of steps after the European Wars of Religion, good sir. It is too simplistic an analysis.
"If you think the church needs that kind of power to thrive"
That the Catholic Church "needs" state support to "thrive", I distinguish as follows: that the Church is *incapable* of thriving without political support, DENIED; that the Church benefits from a government that acknowledges and supports the duties men have towards our Creator, to Jesus Christ, and to His Church, CONCEDED.
The laws promulgated and enforced by any given nation reflect a moral paradigm; and that paradigm SHOULD be one rooted in the moral paradigm of Jesus Christ, and His Apostolic Church.
Glad to see a levelheaded catholic. As a corollary to what you said the massive state abuses of the control of the Church were precisely what led to the “rational” and “simple” deism of the French Revolution. The current Vatican II framing of Church and State is very wise for this reason.
If the state controlling the Church resulted in abuses is the corollary then the Church must control the state?
Neither the State nor the Church should control each other. That isn't the point of the traditional conception of the relationship between the two.
"There are two swords." The temporal power, like the spiritual power, is sovereign within its sphere. But the temporal power is subordinated to the spiritual power, but not in the sense implied by language of one controlling the other.
For example, the laws of a nation must be "negatively Christian" in the sense of "not contrary to the Gospel or right reason" but it doesn't follow that the Church is controlling the state, e.g., by getting involved with setting the level of taxation or whatever else (beyond, of course, pointing out excesses).
In addition, the state is indeed obliged to recognise and worship God in accordance with the true religion, which is that of the Catholic Church, and to facilitate the citizens reaching the supernatural end to which they have been ordered by Almighty God. But again, this isn't the Church controlling the state.
Some of the commenters here seem to be blaming the Church and the traditional teaching for provoking the sins of some of her worst enemies (e.g., the partisans of the French revolution), which is a shockingly liberal way to approach this matter, but does reveal a lot about the presuppositions of our interlocutors.
So the problem of religious liberty is that it permits individual choice to worship untrue religions? Or the problem of religious liberty doesn’t “support the duties of men” towards our creator and his Church as state above by Mr. Brazil? Or both?
How does that make any historical sense when the exact opposite is what happened the second the exact opposite showed up.
Coming on here denying or attacking Catholic doctrine (as in your previous post) and insulting the Church of Rome in the way you did above results in a temporary ban, I'm afraid.
Sir, I don’t have a deep understanding of religious liberty. The basic idea is that no religion can or should be the established religion of the state or nation. So that precludes Catholic, but it also precludes others, the worst being a formally Jewish, Protestant, or Muslim state. Do I have that right?
Am I correct, in a sense, that America is informally a Jewish state as it seems clear the Jews have succeeded in degrading the laws, policies, and cultural in America. So there can be an informal state sponsored religion too?
But I don’t understand how we can have a Catholic state in a country that has a first amendment prohibition. Can you address that?
In my mind we can have a Catholic state only by having a powerful Catholic base through a strong majority. That is something that isn’t enshrined in law but in faith. Such a majority should direct the government towards a Catholic agenda that then affects law, culture, and institutions.
I experience a great deal of frustration and difficulty in talking to Protestant friends who would rebel at the idea of living in an officially Catholic America. In fact, one of my friends says he hates the neocons, identifies as an America first Trump supporter, but then goes on to cheerlead for Trump‘s attack on Iran. taking this one fellow as an example, I discovered that I was arguing with a guy who is both a Zionist and a defender of Freemasonry. The guy hasn’t tried to seriously understand the historical position against Zionism and Freemasonry because he’s admittedly too lazy to research the European roots of those entities that have put America in the pickle that she is in today, and not just America, but all of Western civilization. I want to tell him he’s a nut, but I have to be polite.
If you could address these questions it would be helpful.
Thank you for also calling out Bishop Barron's shibboleth of allowing religion in the public square. The public square wasn't very friendly to Jesus.
Another excellent article. The truth is relatively simple when it comes down to it. Why are so many people--Catholics--attempting to obfuscate it? Keep doing what you are doing. Clarity is key.
I sure hope Elijah gets rehired before anti christ gets going:
https://wordonfire.podbean.com/e/elijah-youre-fired/
I’m with the Bishop on this one. I don’t want our Republic to establish a religion, because I’m afraid I won’t like it. For the same reason, I do t believe teachers should impose prayer in public schools. On the other hand, the government should not restrict lawful religious practice, either. The Sodality of St. Monica, for example, should be allowed on campus, just any queer or Islamic club is. Pope Pius IX, spoke in an entirely different constitutional system than ours, and his utterances were not those of doctrine. Although I am a traditional, conservative Catholic, I am also schooled in the jurisprudence of this nation, and that jurisprudence does not allow it to become an officially Roman Catholic nation, no matter our theoretical longings.
Literally everything is a religion.
Some are more explicit than others.
You might be a conservative “Catholic,” but you are not a traditional (ie., true) one, since the view you just endorsed is condemned by the Church. As regards “the jurisprudence of this nation,” it is inimical to Catholic social doctrine, born of Masonic and revolutionary principles, as every real/traditional Catholic knows, and it is to these false doctrines which you have given your allegiance over those of the Church and Christ.
No offense, but, honestly, how much thought have you put into that? That is square and line the exact position of the status quo. It's not at all breaking barriers. It can be summarized in your phrase "(you) might not like it". Not to sound crass, but when are we supposed to like things and then base analysis around that. We don't pay taxes or go to work because it's primarily something we like. It may be, but that's not how the world, any legal system etc works. We put in a little work and we get something better out of it. There just has to be a better standard. Maybe pick the 2000 year old one. It doesn't bother me if we don't have a religious state, in any regard, even though it'd be an absolute nightmare (as it always is), but I'm not one to say the exact status quo should be repeated simply because I might not like something. There are other governing structures outside a nation-state, but i can't imagine arguing against a religion being foundational to a state.
I’m not offended. I’m always amenable to being corrected. I do acknowledge the deistic and, perhaps, Masonic, influences on our founders. I would prefer the Catholic monarchy of St. Louis. But we don’t have that, and never will, before the end of time. I have not put “a lot” of thought into it, but have put in “a bit,” during the course of trying cases with religious implications, and discussing those implications with co-counsel, and later, other judges. When I write, “I might not like it,” I use the vernacular. I prefer simplicity of expression, because, usually, it’s not that things are too complicated. It’s usually that they are too clear for comfort. Given our existing constitution, which includes all the ways it has been corrupted, which will not change, no matter how much we wish them to, you have not established that imposing a state religion is a good idea.
Ig idk what the distinguishing factor is since you've already admitted that a state religion is a good idea unless "impose" is the operative word. If it is, I'm not sure how to go about that, but I'm perfectly fine with a state religion. Having a state religion isn't exclusive of freedom of religion and I have no issue seeking a state religion of rcc, eo. I don't think the head of a nation-state is where the fulcrum of a state necessarily is, so I seek something else, but I definitely take my religion to be beneficial. I take an abstract "freedom" to be ambiguous enough to be filled by whatever is most digestible to the population in content (even if it wasn't meant to be sanctioned as a religion).
Edit: to be clear, I think "impose" is arbitrary and relative and religion, orideology, is always going to be present, and there never will be a neutral area for that, and I think Christianity is most concerned with individual well-being. What we consider to be the biggest strides in human "freedom" or rights is uniquely under a Christian framework. I'm not sure the arbitrariness of "impose" can be discussed in and by itself. I don't see what's wrong with having a Christian ideology be the basis of law for the state. The declaration of independence doesn't seem to have issue with it, and the founding fathers, like John Adams, promoted and wrote that into state constitution, which had the effect of ending slavery a century before the Civil war. I really don't see an issue with John Adams-tier state religions.
Lots of points, there. England has a state religion. A lot of good it has done them. I’m in mind of England because the English common law was based on the Judeo-Christian tradition—basically, most of the Ten Commandments, with a little law and order thrown in. As late as my generation, law students learned that common law. Sadly, the nihilists/anti-natalists/leftists/Marxists/ and their ilk have amended it to death. I still see the common law as the ideal, in my secular life, and the law of the old Testament as brought to fruition in Jesus Christ as the true law, and the one I try to live by, against all odds. Perhaps I am too dualistic. That is the way I see this world, though. It will end, and Jesus’s law will be established. Then, if I’m still feeling split, I’ll be in trouble. Hope this makes sense.
It does; I get it. Even Jews turned away from the law and were punished, but there are definitely strains of thought which push past others (to their demise, past Christianity), and I think by codifying the worst intentions of man with "freedom", and then bandaging it with negative laws, we end up in a position where you have freedom vs "freedom in Christ".
Edit: also it's a tale of two state constitutions there as the deist Jefferson wrote the Virginia state constitution. It's about aligning ourselves with God through freedom in Christ.
The point isn't the state establishment of just any old religion. The point is for the state to recognise and establish the true religion.
Recognising and establishing a false religion does at least recognise the principle, which is good, but the failures of Anglican England hardly count against the true application of the true principle.
Even failure of Catholic countries wouldn't do that. The obligation of the state establish the true religion isn't primarily to achieve any particular good, nor is it a guarantee that the country will be protected from Reformation and revolutions.
It's because it is the DUTY of the state to recognise God, worship him in accordance with how he has revealed himself and wars to be worshipped, and to assist men in reaching the supernatural end to which they have been ordered.
Socialism and Communism are state religions.
Catholic support for religious freedom does not begin with Vatican II. Selectively quoting popes from the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Church was besieged by liberal and radical socialist opponents and justly lashing out against them, does not mean that you have provided an accurate overview of Church history on this issue. Freedom of conscience was always defended by the early Church. For nearly a century after Constantine, the Church and paganism lived side by side in public life, tolerating each other. Early restrictions on paganism, such as the ban on public sacrifices, were meant to ensure a religiously neutral public sphere that Christians and pagans could share without Christians being contaminated by sacrificial offerings. Freedom of conscience and practice was the guiding principle here, not religious domination. This only changed in the final decades of the Roman Empire.
"Selectively quoting popes from the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Church was besieged by liberal and radical socialist opponents and justly lashing out against them, does not mean that you have provided an accurate overview of Church history on this issue."
I think if you adopt this kind of line of argument, then—aside from it being false—you leave yourself vulnerable to attacks from other modernists on issues that you might still hold onto, whether that be the Church's teaching on abortion, contraception, or whatever else marriage issues. The same goes for your historical method.
Also, I'll wait for you to prove that we were "selectively quoting" the 19th-20th century popes.
As far as I see you cite Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI, Gregory XVI, and Leo XIII. All great Popes, but all from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are they not?
As far as modernism goes, you are correct that the historical method is limited, especially when it applies to the dogmatic claims of the Church regarding God and His revelation. The social and political policies of the Church though are very much a matter of historical context and study. Acknowledging that the Church has at times recommended different policies towards other faiths depending on circumstances does not mean that her claim to be the one true source of faith is any less accurate.
I see. Your message seemed to me to indicate I was selectively quoting from their work, rather than from popes in general. In any case, I think it is vexatious to say that the approach taken is faulty for being time-bound etc. This is not how the magisterium works. Further, the teaching of those popes was not presented as time-bound, not at all.
"Freedom of conscience and practice was the guiding principle here, not religious domination. "
I think the guiding principle behind why the early Christians refrained from participating in pagan sacrifices was to avoid displeasing God and provoking scandal, actually.
"But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils. You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils: you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils...But if any man say: This has been sacrificed to idols, do not eat of it for his sake that told it, and for conscience' sake. Conscience, I say, not thy own, but the other's. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? ...Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God. Be without offence to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the church of God: As I also in all things please all men, not seeking that which is profitable to myself, but to many, that may be saved." 1 Corinthians 10:20-21, 28-29, 31-33 (DRB)
Correct.
On account of considerations I will give, this is in my opinion a scandalous and ignorant, not to mention an attention seeking and melodramatic article. Not only is Bishop Barron being incredibly wise and cautious, and as I intend to show, is not condemned by the church at all. The point is that he is not acting against the original sense in which the condemnations were written, here is why:
Firstly, because in america there is simply no organ of the state that would be capable of enforcing a truly catholic (state) religion. This is from the lack of legitimacy of our very morally lost democracy to do so with Justice. For a painful instance of how this could be abused, simply turn your gaze to the “civic church” of the French Revolution…if you actually think the US government (in which our society is even more ignorant about natural law and virtue) could institute a state-sponsored form of Catholicism as of now, you are simply delusional. Bishop Barron rightly acknowledges that we do not live in a Catholic mileu, but rather a deeply Protestant and Secular one in which a state-sponsored religion is simply not feasible to institute. This is why we should focus on building up the Church organically and converting Hearts to Christ, instead of day-dreaming about imposing it in such a way that scandalizes many who already dislike the Church.
Secondly, and like the first, if a state religion were brought about in america, it would just be protestant. Thus, Catholicism would have no rights and we get to live out the Anglican Reformation or wars of religion again. Hey but huge win for Catholicism, I guess?
Thirdly, the implicit belief of the popes who wrote these condemnations was that the Ecclesiastical and Civic arms MUST be separate things, YET in harmonious cooperation with each other. Bishop Barron therefore does not contradict the sense in which the condemnations were written because they were written for the context of organized Monarchies, not Democratic and modern states.
Lastly, consider that most Catholic state religions were so corrupt that it naturally led to a deep corruption of the Catholic Hierarchy, causing antagonism to the Church, widespread social divisions and eventually rationalism and atheism. State influence over the Church in France for example naturally led people to (falsely) see the Church and the King as their oppressors due to their lack of true discipline. It is not as good as you think. I met a Polish woman who said that because the State and Catholicism are so combined, it is simply a matter of custom, not devotion. She told me she learned more about her faith in the US, and this is precisely because we do not have a “state religion”
For these reasons I think this article is psuedo-intellectual and worse, psuedo-traditional and simply focused on controversy and getting attention, not The Gospel of Christ. I admire Barron’s wisdom and fortitude amidst so many enemies, and we should support Him because He is a beacon of Catholic Truth and Culture in this country and will bear good fruit.
My man, if you get a moment's pause from praising the supposed wisdom of Bishop Barron, I suggest you read the text of Fr Ryan in the article, which I believe answers your points adequately.
“What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group.
It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation.
While all this is very true in logic and in theory, the event of its practical realization in any State or country is so remote in time and in probability that no practical man will let it disturb his equanimity or affect his attitude toward those who differ from him in religious faith.”
Ironically, Fr. Ryan’s quote is nearly exactly what Barron is saying, and also 1:1 with Vatican II’s formulation of Religious Liberty.
As Fr. Ryan says, it is simply true that we do not have the ability to formalize a state Catholic religion yet, and so we should focus on building up the Church and spreading the Gospel. Which, praise God, is exactly what Barron is doing.
No, Barron told you to "fight hard against any formal establishment of religion."
The "Devotee-of-St. Albert" has said:
"Also, since you also expressly reject Vatican II, I am obliged by faith to say that you promote schism, heresy, and scandal. May the Lord correct you."
In fact, I'm just exercising my "right to religious freedom." Those who accept Vatican II are obliged to recognise the following from Dignitatis Humanae:
"The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed."
Further:
"Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others."
Accusing us of "promoting schism, heresy and scandal" for refusing to accept the novelties and errors of Vatican II—aside from being rich, given his defence of Bishop Barron's rejection of established religion in America—"might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy" and is thus "abuse of one's right and a violation of others."
For this violation of our "rights" to religious freedom, it's the naughty corner for this gentleman for the next 30 days, in accordance with Dignitatis Humanae and our comments policy. Good day.
https://www.wmreview.org/about#§comments-policy
Your POV is frightening to any non-Catholic believer in Christ.
I'm sorry you feel that way. You needn't. However, perhaps the idea of state naturalism and indifferentism to the truth of Christ should be more frightening to you, along with the idea of a state which in its essence is incompatible with what are the duties of all men, namely to recognise God and the true religion—whatever you think that religion is.
Vatican II didn't formally change much, but these two things:
1. the theology of the bishopric in relation to the Pope (the college of bishops was also directly willed by Christ to possess the keys, but only cum Petro et Sub Petro) and to the gifts bestowed on bishops at ordination not being solely due to the authority of the Pope
2. The human person does possess some religious freedom by right, insofar as they should be free to pursue the call of God, but not in the sense that establishes religious indifference, nor in the sense that means it is per se wrong to have a Catholic country, only recognizing that such a state would have to respect some basic elements of religious freedom
Between these two, the first one settled a dispute that was much more ancient. I say dispute, but really the council accepted the position that had long been discarded. From Aquinas even to Pius XII, the theology that all validity of sacramental power depended solely on the Jurisdiction of the Holy Father was accepted. The council overturned it, and indeed it was the most controversial proposal of the whole council. It led to the greatest disputes and took the longest to resolve, and likely would have received more non placet votes than Dignitas Humanitae if Paul VI hadn't agreed to add an appendix to the document explaining the new teaching on the bishopric in thomistic terms.
Yet, we almost never hear anyone attacking this first point as a betrayal. We do hear those attacking the second. And it is certainly true that the first change constitutes a far greater deviation from what had been accepted by the Church over a greater period of time, and a more essential component, as it related to a core part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the nature of the Church.
It's also certainly true that Dignitas Humanitae did change some Catholic teaching, much of which can be found cited in this article. The council never explicitly said it's overturning anything, but it was clear. Pope Benedict XVI, during his Pontificate, in some address even noted that Vatican II implicitly overturned some of the teachings referenced in the syllabus of errors. I believe the term he used was "counter syllabus."
I say all this because it seems striking to think that a relatively young doctrine (not dogma) of the Church could never theoretically be rejected later on. The church has done this many times throughout her history. Never on matters of dogma, but in doctrines that derive from the dogma, of which "religious freedom in the political sphere" surely is included. Not all doctrines are infallible, even if they are, at the time, authentic Catholic teaching.
There are many other instances we could list, namely:
- the Chinese Rites controversy
- the necessity of the words of institution and that the words of institution are without question the exact moment the Host is consecrated (in the early 19th or late 18th century the Pope condemned what had been ancient practice - this has since been reversed/restored post VII. This is because apostolic Tradition in the Eastern rites openly contradicts the 1800 view)
- the necessity of the phrase "mysterium fidei" in the words of institution, which Pope Innocent III declared as being of apostolic origin, yet even St. Bellarmine rejected this
All in all, the Council didn't formally reject everything the popes had said about religious freedom. They still adhered to the idea that there can be no religious indifferentism, nor an absolute right to religious freedom, nor can it contravene society's obligations to promote the true faith.
Underlying all of these pieces is the implicit belief that idea contained within 10 encyclicals could never ever be called incorrect, and yet it is absolutely certain that this has happened before. What makes the case of religious freedom even more unique, however, is that the church didn't overturn the prior teachings on it, but developed a new teaching on the dignity of man's search for God, based on the Tradition of the church, that implicated that some of the prior teachings on the topic of freedom were no longer tenable. Not because the church merely said (or clandestinely said) these are wrong, go about as you wish, but rather that it developed a legitimate Catholic teaching that had implications against other teachings.
Nor can one say this make us modernists. Modernists reject dogma and see everything as naturalistic, historical processes. Catholics must believe in the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, but also may recognize that God does permit that the Church, among lesser doctrines, can make mistakes, but none of which can compromise her eternal purpose, Dogma, and Gospel message.
Ultimately, there are no grounds to critique Bishop Barron as regards authentic Catholic teaching, here. Much of the teaching about bringing society and governments to recognize the Kingship of Christ remain truly valid -- it's just that Vatican II taught that this also includes a limited freedom of conscience as regarding man's search for truth in religion. indeed, in just the last few days, Pope Leo XIV noted that as regards the political state of the world, society must be moved to accept the natural law of God and, in the words of St. Augustine, reject the love of self and move to the love of God. No matter what any particular priest said in 1922, the bishops alone convened in sacred council taught otherwise, not by arbitrarily rejecting old teaching, but by expanding other doctrine and putting the others in proper relationship.
There are certainly members of Congress in the US who have no problem in combining state and religion (albeit a false religion) when justifying their policies which not only affect the US but have ramifications possibly affecting the whole world. I'm speaking here of senator Ted Cruz who based on a false interpretation of scripture from his erroneous bible thinks that he can plunge the world into war and believe he's serving God. False religions lead not only to spiritual death but physical death when brought to bear in politics. The Catholic religion alone has the antidote to all the misfortunes that enevitably befall mankind when it is abandoned. It is the Kingship of Christ alone established and recognised on earth that can save us from the effects of these errors and the Catholic Church alone IS the kingdom of Christ on earth.
“The priviliged way” is to adhere to the delivered Faith and never embrace falsehood for expediency.
Freedom in itself is hopeless, and freedom in Christ requires us to carry our cross. Freedom in Christ is not liberal freedom of religion. We don't need freedom of religion to have freedom in Christ. We need hope laid down at creation through and for Jesus.