Judeo-Christian revelation has always taught that, in view of God’s absolute sovereignty over the whole creation, the First Commandment of the Decalogue obliges not just individuals, but societies as such, including the political community. Over a century ago, Pope Leo XIII already acknowledged that American-style church-state separation (then fairly benign) was acceptable in countries with predominantly non-Catholic populations. However, he and all the popes taught that, as a matter of doctrinal principle, the nation or state has no more right than the individual to proclaim its independence from God and his revealed word. It is not morally entitled to say, “As a civic community we have no duty to worship and honor God, or to follow any specific religious creed in our laws and policies”.
Under the Mosaic Covenant the Decalogue and the Temple worship were the corner-stones of Israel’s life as a nation. And while, under the New Covenant, a clearer distinction between God and Caesar was made, the ultimate authority of the Incarnate Son of God over all the affairs of men became the foundational principle of Christian civilization. As Christ solemnly proclaimed in taking leave of his disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me” (Mt. 28: 18).
In response to the growing secularization of Western society, this doctrine of Christ’s social kingship was classically expounded by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1885), “On the Christian Constitution of States”, and by Pius XI in his 1925 encyclical Quas Primas, instituting the liturgical Feast of Christ the King. Both these encyclicals are referenced in their entirety in the final (1997) edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in its exposition of the First Commandment (cf. last footnote to #2105). In this sub-section, headed “The Social Duty of Religion and the Right to Religious Liberty”, the CCC also cites two affirmations of Vatican Council II. One is that a just religious liberty leaves intact “the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of individuals and societies to the true religion and the one Church of Christ”. (Just before they voted on this text, the Council Fathers were told by the official relator that these words from article 1 of the Declaration on Religious Liberty were to be understood as reaffirming the duty of the “public power” [potestas publica] to recognize Catholicism as the true religion.) The other citation comes from the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, #13, affirming that citizens should strive to “infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures, of the communities in which [they] live” (#2105, emphasis added in both citations).
This brings us to the interview given by His Holiness Pope Francis on May 9, 2016 to the French newspaper La Croix.
Among other provocative statements that have since prompted widespread discussion, the Holy Father replied as follows to a journalist’s question about Church-State relations:
“States must be secular. Confessional states end badly. That goes against the grain of history. I believe that a version of laicity accompanied by a solid law guaranteeing religious freedom offers a framework for going forward. We are all equal as sons (and daughters) of God and with our personal dignity” (emphasis added).
Taken in their most natural sense, the Pope’s first four words cited above go directly against the Catholic doctrine of Christ’s social kingship. Francis doesn’t merely say that in today’s pluralistic and secularized Western society it may now sometimes be more pastorally prudent for the Church, even in traditionally Catholic countries, not to insist on the exercise her divinely-bestowed right to be legally recognized as the true religion (cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, #76). No, his assertion that States have a duty to disavow any religious confession is unqualified. Absolute. And the second and third sentences cited in bold type above, expressing His Holiness’ personal historical judgments, confirm the universal, quasi-doctrinal character of the first. For, taken together, these three blunt assertions constitute a sweeping, negative generalization about Catholic (and other) confessional states in the past as well as the present, and with implications for the future (since such states “go against the grain of history”).
It would therefore be pretty hard to give a ‘hermeneutic-of-continuity’ reading to these words – one that would plausibly harmonize them with the doctrine of Christ’s Social Kingship that we’ve summarized above. Indeed, this doctrine has been so neglected and forgotten in recent decades that I wonder how much the Holy Father knows about it. His view, unfortunately, seems to be that the Church simply got it wrong when she promoted Catholic confessional states right through the post-Constantine era; and that only in the late 20th century has she finally learned that Church/State separation, along the lines pioneered by the U.S.A., is really the best arrangement for all nations – even those with large Catholic majorities. It seems likely that the Pope’s jaundiced view of Catholic ‘establishment’ has been fostered by the influence of his fellow Jesuits such as Fr. John Courtney Murray; for they have been leaders in advocating the pro-separationist thesis since Vatican II. (For a critique of Murray’s attempt to interpret the Council in this ‘Americanist’ sense, see my two-part article here: Part I and Part II.)
It’s true that the historical record of confessional Catholic States has been far from stainless: it has often been marred not only by excessive intolerance of minorities, but also by harmful government interference in church affairs. But in this fallen world, disestablishment eventually turns out to be worse, as we are now finding out the hard way in the apostate West. For once the Catholic Church is no longer legally recognized as the authentic interpreter of morality, even the natural moral law becomes perverted and finally jettisoned. Media-driven propaganda leads public opinion to accept grave injustices that undermine families and menace both temporal and eternal life: abortion, euthanasia, immoral sex education, ‘gay marriage’, gender ideology, artificial procreation, and so on.
To conclude on a brighter note: Catholic establishment does not necessarily end as “badly” as His Holiness supposes. The Dominican Republic remains an officially Catholic nation to this day. Its present concordat with the Holy See was signed over 60 years ago, but is still in force half a century after Vatican II, because while the Dominican State duly honors the Blessed Trinity and recognizes many special rights for the Church, the concordat already recognized for non-Catholic minorities the religious freedom proclaimed a decade later by the Council in Dignitatis Humanae. Much to the chagrin of UN élites, this Catholic republic has recently amended its constitution so as to recognize that human life begins at conception an that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
I find myself writing this on Corpus Christi Thursday – which reminds me that I was visiting friends in the Dominican Republic on that major feast day some years ago. We were driving through the capital, Santo Domingo, and I expressed wonderment that here, downtown on a weekday morning, the streets were practically empty. My friend at the wheel reminded me: “Padre, remember you’re in a Catholic country! Nobody works here on Corpus Christi!”
If you read Italian and/or Spanish, take a look at the Dominican concordat with the Vatican.
You might also add a little prayer that if someone draws this document to the present Bishop of Rome’s attention, he doesn’t order its abrogation by the Holy See on the grounds that “States must be secular”.
So Father, what is your solution? A Catholic theocracy? The fact that we believe as Catholics, that it is the One True Faith, is simply that, a BELIEF. A belief I hold with all my heart, which in turn effects every part of my being and life. In saying that, the Catholic Church has no more right to claim a position of moral authority in state affairs than any other faith.As St Pope JP II said “The Church imposes nothing, she proposes…”
The Truth of what she preaches and the evidence of these truths based upon the results of their practical application, is what will convince people to live according to the truths of the Catholic Church. We have no right to demand force anyone to live by them.
CONDEMNED: “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. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.”
CONDEMNED: “Hence 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. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.”
CONDEMNED: “Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.”
– Bl. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors
“To have in public matters no care for religion, and in the arrangement and administration of civil affairs to have no more regard for God than if He did not exist, is a rashness unknown to the very pagans; for in their heart and soul the notion of a divinity and the need of public religion were so firmly fixed that they would have thought it easier to have city without foundation than a city without God. Human society, indeed for which by nature we are formed, has been constituted by God the Author of nature; and from Him, as from their principle and source, flow in all their strength and permanence the countless benefits with which society abounds. As we are each of us admonished by the very voice of nature to worship God in piety and holiness, as the Giver unto us of life and of all that is good therein, so also and for the same reason, nations and States are bound to worship Him; and therefore it is clear that those who would absolve society from all religious duty act not only unjustly but also with ignorance and folly.”
– Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus
“That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. ”
– Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos
“If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”
– Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas
I’m sure there are more. These come to the top of my mind. The Church has always taught the right of the state — in fact, in many cases the duty — to espouse and promote the True Religion.
You beat me to it.
If I had known you were going to, I would have saved myself the cutting and pasting. 😉
So you are proposing a Catholic theocracy then! Am I right?
So, why should I believe St Pope JP II is wrong?
Also, I don`t think that all you have quoted falls under the infallible dogma of the Church, especially the ones before 1871. The Vatican has not even fully declared on the infallibility of Pre- Vatican I papal documents. The released a list of what qualifies so far.
But to get to the core of the issue. For arguments sake; Say I`m an atheist. You are a Catholic. Why should the religion that you BELIEVE in, be held in authority over me, when I, in my GOD GIVEN FREE WILL, do not believe?
Why should the religion that you BELIEVE in, be held in authority over me, when I, in my GOD GIVEN FREE WILL, do not believe?
Because the Lord your God said so. Is not that good enough reason?
The Lord our God never said any such thing. In fact the evidence points to the exact opposite. “Give what is Caesars’ to Caesar and to God what is Gods'”
“For the kingdom is the Lord’s; and he shall have dominion over the nations. ” (Psalm 22:28)
“All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me” (Mt. 28: 18)
Sounds like the same God from Old Testament to New
I would prefer a theoracy to be honest. Or at the least a Catholic state like Spain under Franco. Just like in the good ol’ days; you dont have to be Catholic, but you will not profess any false religion inside the nations borders.
I dont see how one can say they are Catholic and be against the idea.
Franco! Franco!!!!!!!….This is the kind of thinking that has caused people to leave the Church in droves. God help us!!!!
yep. It was Franco. Not Vatican II and all the nonsense that came with it. How could anyone not have seen that one…
Franco held a Catholic state from 1936 until 1976. Catholicism was the o ly religion by law. The economy under Franco was called “the Spanish miracle” by Time magazine. 0 unemployment for decades. No atheistic communist trash. Look at Spain now. Hardly Catholic. Unemployment over 30%…
But yeah, it was Franco that drove people out..
Ye people like you are a great example of why a Catholic State is a bad idea. God bless you.
I think I may have found my next Secretary of State!
Do you know how to dhimmi?
Franco was needed at the time. That’s not to say all he did was right. But Spain needed the kind of stability he gave. The cortez had been in utter chaos. Learn some history.
“For the morals enforced by the Church are the guarantee of freedom.” – Hilaire Belloc
The state is ALWAYS confessional. If I weren’t forced to, I wouldn’t live in a secular state.
Learn some history you say. Haha. I know the history very well.
The State can only confess the will of the people. If it leads to the destruction of the people. So be it. “For the wages of sin is death”
Free will is God given. Nothing can revoke this.
No, it’s the thinking of the Bergoglios of the Church that have Catholics leaving in droves. Not even leaving, they just cease to be Catholic and poof!
No. The Churchs’ history of clinging onto temporal power has been the biggest reason the Church has suffered persecution. The clergy need to stop misunderstanding Christ mission on earth. “My Kingdom is not of this world”…….”Go make disciples of all nations”
The churchmen of the last 50 years have been in complete agreement for a great part with the secular governments. Which is a big reason why we are in the pickle we are in. You are speaking nonsense.
If I am speaking nonsense, then St Pope JP II is speaking nonsense.
I am honoured to be in such esteemed company.
I prefer to be sympatico with Christ Jesus.
I believe St Pope JP II was here in Earth and is now in Heaven.
And that has nothing to do with whether he made errors here on Earth.
And it is the exact same for all those who you cite to support your theories and beliefs.
Wait. What? Who was I citing? Jesus Christ.
Not ‘of this world’ i.e.. worldly, but His Kingship is most certainly for this world.
From the Ignatius Catholic Bible Study, The Gospel of John, Commentary on John 18:36 My Kingship: Jesus does not deny His royal mission, but disassociates it from the political form of government that concerns Pilate. He thus turns the focus toward heaven, where he will be crowned not with gold but with glory and honour (Heb 2:9) and where homage is paid to him not in taxes but in worship (9:38) and allegiance to the truth (8:31-32).
The coronation of Jesus begins with His passion and culminates with His Ascension (Eph 1:20-23), from which time his dominion extends over the earth through the preaching and sacramental ministry of the Church (Mt 28:18-20)
Of what point is teaching and preaching if it does not extend to making Christ the King of our lives and that being reflected through our entire community?
You are confusing spiritual power with temporal power exercised by the State. The Churchs’ power is in its’ teaching and preaching the Truth. People can do with it what they will.
As it says in Ecclesiasticus 15: 14-18;
“He himself made human beings in the beginning, and then left them free to make their own decisions.
If you choose, you will keep the commandments and so be faithful to his will.
He has set fire and water before you; put out your hand to whichever you prefer.
A human being has life and death before him; whichever he prefers will be given him”
What you are proposing is chaos. God is a God of order. He has a Kingdom and it extends to this Earth.
What is the truth without action to declare that truth? Why should we put murderers in prison, if not because they have offended God?
You are confusing too many topics of theology and philosophy into one debate.
God gave us free will. Why did you not respond to the Scripture I quoted?!
Social belief in objective moral truth, such as murder is bad, is nothing to do with imposing religious beliefs on the whole nation. That is a whole other story.
“Social belief in objective moral truth, such as murder is bad”
A society without God holds no such beliefs. Abortion is a good example of this.
“once the Catholic Church is no longer legally recognized as the authentic interpreter of morality, even the natural moral law becomes perverted and finally jettisoned.”
If Franco – for all his flaws – and the “kind of thinking” he was associated with was such a scandal and cause of mass defection from the faith as you seem to suggest, we ought to have seen such defections beginning in the mid 1930’s. Yet, if anything, we see growth on nearly all pertinent metrics in the West until the 1960’s.
I think this is a line of argument that needs a great deal more development to be convincing.
He won the Civil war, so nobody had the means to oppose. Although sadly at that time he probably was the best of a very bad lot. Basically when people got the opportunity to change the system, they did.
It will take a long time before people come back to the Church. They will have to learn the hard way.
Jn 18:36 “‘Mine is not a kingdom of this world”
What you are talking about is Gods’ reign over everyone “in the Spirit of Truth”. We can no more deny God that live by not breathing.
This does not mean we are forced to obey God. God gave us free will.
God does not contradict Himself. Plain and simple. He is the Truth and the eternal truth does not have “other” truths.
He has dominion over this world and the universe. By eliminating God from our society we have arrived at Sodom and Gomorrah.
What do you want Sodom or a civilized Christian society? You are either for God or against God there are no other options.
Yes we have free will to choose our damnation in Gehenna or be in paradise. So choose wisely and type wisely.
Exactly, we all have the right to choose. By advocating for a Catholic State you are going against peoples’ God given free will.
As it says in Ecclesiasticus 15: 14-18;
“He himself made human beings in the beginning, and then left them free to make their own decisions.
If you choose, you will keep the commandments and so be faithful to his will.
He has set fire and water before you; put out your hand to whichever you prefer.
A human being has life and death before him; whichever he prefers will be given him”
Dear DoWhatever, we can add many and I mean many verses in scripture , psalm 2, 22, 24, 33, and on and on . Me thinks someone is stuck on a one tract verse as was Mr. Luther 500 years ago. Me thinks someone does not compare scripture with scripture or thinks only certain verses in scripture are of importance. Someone misses the point of the context of Christ’s reply to out fox the foxes who tried to entrap him with the civil authority. Someone who expounds that separation of church and state is the correct form of government needs only to look at the result since 1789 and can do a body count , and I mean a body count. But like the BBC and its ilk we will bring up Cathars, crusades , Galileo and the “masses murdered” in the Inquistion…….. oh such injustice ……. those theocrats with their coercion…… (nevermind the absolute tyranny of the politically correct who even determine what toilet you are to use) ……..
Yes my dear DoWhatever….. Our Lady of Good Success help us
Via abortion, euthanasia, transgender stuff, and all that too? ‘Cause Caesar is demanding it.
Catholic Encyclopedia > S > State and Church [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm]
Are you actually Catholic or simply stirring up s**t to irritate people? In all honesty if you actually were Catholic you would know that Catholicism is not subjective as your question plainly shows you believe it to be; its an objective truth, whether you personally believe it or not.
Those are not my proposals, they are the constant teaching of the Church. I’m merely sharing them with you because I have the feeling you’ve never read them.
You should believe JPII is wrong if you believe he contradicts his predecessors. Popes guard doctrine, they do not change or invent it.
As for infallibility, the Pastor Aeternus (the Vatican I constitution that promulgated infallibility) did not invent infallibility, it simply made known what was already implicitly believed.
The encyclicals of these past popes are part of the ordinary magisterium, and require assent. Inasmuch as they build upon each other, they are even more authoritative, through the re-assertion of what they teach by multiple popes.
The core principle here is that error has no rights; only truth does. States have an obligation to pay public obeisance to Christ the King, because failing to do so is to subvert the true authority Our Lord has over the world, whether individual citizens believe it or not.
Nobody’s free will is abridged by living in a Catholic State. They can still choose not to believe. But the position of the state is that the True Religion is the state religion.
Not all encyclicals pre Vatican I are part of the ordinary magisterium. That is my point. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem issued by the CDF published on L`Obsservatore Romano in July 1998 listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated that this was not meant to be a complete list. So maybe you should check it out.
Anyway, you still won`t outline how this would all function. So you do believe in a Catholic theocracy and believe St Pope JP II is a heretic!!!
So what if a Muslim believes exactly what you believe!
Tell me why we should allow either faith be recognised as the State religion!
Put down the freemasonic Enlightenment Kool-Aid, brother. It’s rotting your brain.
So St Pope JP II and Archbishop Fulton Sheen were drinking it too?
Eh, I think I`ll trust them over you buddy!!!
Quotes please.
About what? This thread is getting messy, Ha.
I think you did provide a quote from JP 2 but I’m sure you can come up with something from Sheen. It is good to know exactly what we are claiming for people.
Go onto Youtube and type in “The Glories of being an American” by Abp Sheen. He pretty much gives the thumbs up to the US Constitution.
The US is a lie, corrupted from its inception i.e. having fatal foundational flaws, and co-opted very soon after its founding.
*
– Unless the LORD builds …
– Good fruit is gathered from …
*
For those interested:
– The Declaration of Independence (U.S.): Riddled with Error [https://thewarourtime.com/2015/07/04/the-declaration-of-independence-us-riddled-with-error/]
– What Is True Religious Freedom? [https://thewarourtime.com/2015/03/26/what-is-true-religious-freedom/]
– The United States of America flawed from its inception [https://thewarourtime.com/2015/03/27/the-united-states-of-america-flawed-its-inception/]
– The Fatal Error of these United States of America [https://thewarourtime.com/2015/06/26/the-fatal-error-of-these-united-states-of-america/]
That`s a whole other debate. But I will say that for whatever “flaws” are within the US style of governance, the US is the closest to the Truth.
That’s certainly a healthy dose of American exceptionalism.
We’re all products of enlightenment thought…them too. But again, you have to remember you’re not choosing JPII and Abp. Sheen over a blog commenter, you’re choosing them over popes…over a perennial magisterium.
Steve, will you please outline exactly how you see this Catholic State functioning. Numerous blogs and websites criticise the modern secular state and the Catholic Churchs’ post Vatican II ideas on it, but never actually put forward a blueprint for what they are implying; Either a Catholic State or theocracy. I genuinely would like to know how you and other advocates can possibly justify this when it clearly goes against the idea of God given free will to choose.
Absolutely. I would believe St Pope JP II and Abp Sheen teachings on the matter over the other Popes. These are the Popes that had the Papal States. The Church has no right to temporal power. Christ said “My kingdom is not of this world”
It is no coincidence that the Papacy lost the Papal states the exact year it proclaimed the doctrine of Infallibility. I believe this was God showing the Church where its’ true authority lay. To teach and preach alone.
If you have such a feeble grasp of Magisterial authority that you’ll take the innovations of modern popes over the consistent teaching of prior popes (or councils) then there’s nothing to discuss.
You’re putting your Catholicism at the service of your erroneous political philosophy. And I neither have time to convince you, nor to write a “blueprint” extrapolating what has already been taught.
Well if you don`t have the time now, maybe you could do an article on it. I genuinely would love to read it and understand your point of view.
I agree with so much of what you blog about. But one of my pet peeves is the notion of a Catholic State or theocracy. I just simply cannot reconcile it with the Scriptures or the teachings of Christ.
I am genuinely trying to seek, find and live the Truth. So if you can enlighten me, I`m all ears. God bless you and your work.
Then please, please, try to understand the order of priority when it comes to levels of Magisterial authority. Later popes cannot contradict earlier ones. It breaks the whole system.
Radical Catholic is a man whose judgment I trust when it comes to reading material. I’d check out his recommendation. In fact, I probably should do so, too.
Will do Steve.
Believe it or not, there are books on the subject – for example, Cardinal Hergenröther’s Catholic Church and Christian State. It’s online for free somewhere.
Cool, thanks. I`ll look it up.
I have had a look at the book Mr. Karmel suggests and I think you would find it most interesting. A quote:
“But though a preeminence of the Church over the State, an ideal superiority of the Church, is assumed, this doctrine contains in reality none of the dangers attributed to it. It by no means ‘annihilates’ or ‘destroys’ the civil power. For the superiority of the Church over the civil power is only called forth practically when the latter is no longer within its own province, when the interests in question are not purely civil, but have also a religious character. In its own province the civil power is fully independent as long as it does no injury to religion. The Church does not demand a recognition of her superiority over the state for the promotion of the personal and temporal interests of her rulers, but only for the maintenance of the truth revealed by God, which is for the true interest of the State and the Christian people. She only requires that the recognition of God as the source of every right shall not merely be speculative and theoretical, but practically and truly acted upon by the State, or at least that it shall not be positively contravened, which ever will be and, ever has been injurious to the State.”
From ‘Catholic Church and Christian State’ Cardinal Hergenrother.
https://archive.org/details/catholicchurcha00herggoog
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. So is the authentic OTF.
I have studied Islam and despise what it proposes as revelation; but that said, I DO admire them for their confessional states. IF Muhammed was the consummate prophet, and IF the Quran and ahadith manifested the legitimate will of God, then why not arrange society thusly? IF God were sheer will, without love, and without fatherly care for his own creatures, then a brutal diktat enforcing a voluntarist construct would indeed save souls from hell.
God be praised, He is a loving, kind, and merciful Father, so a Catholic confessional state is entirely plausible–and to be desired. There is room for both righteous honour given to God and free will properly understood in such a state. Perhaps Francis’ garbled message is simply meant to put such a construct in the hands of well-formed laymen, not clerics. I think that would be in keeping with the perennial view of Holy Mother Church.
Two words for you: FREE WILL
Four words for you: FREE WILL PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD
Hey we agree on something. Fantastic. God bless you.
These are of extreme importance
– John Paul II > Motu Proprio > Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio > AD TUENDAM FIDEM
– Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith > PROFESSION OF FAITH
You are confusing the extraordinary magisterium with the ordinary magisterium. Vatican I defined papal infallibility, which is the extraordinary magisterium, not the ordinary magisterium.
The ordinary magisterium has existed from the beginning of the Church until today. For these last 2,000 years.
.
No, not a theocracy, which would be a rule of the clergy. I know it hurts to give up the stinking old nonsensical theory of a ‘neutral’ secular state, but we must face the fact that it is an unreality. We are more likely to discover a unicorn than a ‘neutral’ state. Besides, a confessional state only requires non-believers to live under a set of laws they might not like (sound familiar at all?), not to be compelled to believe things they don’t believe.
Exactly just like what happened here in good ol Ireland. We had a de facto theocracy from the 1920`s to the 1990`s. And look what happened!!
The Church crumbled. A great apostasy. So sad.
Christ never intended for his Church to have any sort of temporal power. As he said in Jn 18:36 “My Kingdom is not of this world”
The Churchs’ power is in the Truth of what she preaches and teaches. That is why I believe when the dogma of infallibility became doctrine, the very same year the Papacy lost all its Papal States to Italy. That was God showing the Church were its’ true power lies.
When Catholics believed in God and practised their faith out of love for Him the world was a totally different place. The catastrophic Child Abuse Scandal not only hit Ireland a jugular blow which it hasn’t recovered from, but the whole of the universal CC. This was entirely the result of homosexuals being admitted in boat loads to Catholic seminaries and good upright men being sent away, which ties in with the spirit of Vatican II. Also, the fact, as admitted by Bella Dodd, that Communists were placed in Catholics seminaries in the ’30s & ’40s in order to infiltrate the CC with Marxist dogma directly led to the calling of Vatican II by Pope John XXIII who is reported as having been a Freemason, along with Pope Paul VI. As Modernism combines Marxism, Freemasonry, Liberalism etc. is it any wonder the CC is in the state it is?
Yep a lot of bad things contributed to the current state of the Church.
A Catholic confessional state does not mean the Church runs the state or government. It means the Church and state are not separated. Not seperated in that they work together. They work in hand in hand with each other. Laymen run the state through a political system, and clerics run the Church. Laymen do not govern the Church and bishops do not run the government, but they work together in building a Catholic society. A Catholic confessional state makes the Catholic religion, the official state religion.
A Catholic confessional state under Christ the King, can adopt any good form of government. Any of the good forms of government of either monarchy, aristocracy, or polity, as defined and taught by St. Thomas and Aristotle.
I understand the difference between a Catholic State and a Catholic theocracy. But both are wrong and are an affront to God given human freedom and dignity.
If we as Catholics promote such things, we have no argument against atheistic communist states or Islamic states.
Of course we have an argument against Islamic and Atheistic Communist states. Islamic states are wrong because Islam is a man made false religion. The Catholic state is right because Catholicism is the only true religion revealed by God through divine revelation. Atheistic states are wrong and Catholic states right, because God exists.
You and I BELIEVE that the Catholic faith is the One True Faith. That is the whole point of faith. Our Creed say “I believe” not “I know”.
Only people insecure on their faith feel the need to impose it on others.
A Catholic state presupposes that the people of that state are Catholic. So before the state becomes confessional, the people must be Catholic. That means people need conversion to Catholicism. So a society must be evangelized and converted first. Every single human being on the planet should be Catholic. That is why the Church has the mission to spread the Gospel and the faith to the ends of the earth. The Church converts nations and these nations then become confessional after conversion.
Now that is definitely a better way to do it. And it is something we can work towards. If all the people voluntarily ascent to such a thing, that is great. But if there are any citizens that object, it cannot be imposed on them.
The vast majority of people in a Catholic state will be Catholic and would want to have a Catholic confessional state, but not every single person will be Catholic. There is free will. There will always be some type of small minority. However, not every single citizen has to ascent for there to be a confessional state. It is enough that the majority consent. It can be imposed because consent of every single person is not needed. A state has the duty and right to be officially Catholic irrespective of Whether every single person agrees.
I disagree. The duty of the state is to represent every individual citizen. Every individual citizen has the right to freedom of religion. How can one feel like an equal member of a state, that has as an official religion, that is different to ones own. The state should be irreligious.
The duty of the state is not the representation of every individual, but securing and promoting the common good.
The individual made his own free choice to not be part of the official and true religion.
Nope. The duty of the state is the representation of every individual AND securing and promoting the common good. These two principles do not contradict each other.
The individual made his own free choice not to be part of the religion that you and I BELIEVE is the One True Faith.
Every human being has a right to live in a State free from coercion into any religion. It is called religious freedom.
The human being has a right not to be coerced into the religion, but he does not have the right to stop the state from proclaiming it’s official religion.
The state has it’s civil authority which comes from God. It’s power is our superior not our equal. It doesn’t represent the will of the people, but the divine authority. The will of God.
Which is what? All belief in any religion is a matter of faith.
You and I believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Faith. Many other people disagree. We have no right to tell that “You have to obey Christs’ Law”
Everyone is bound by Gods’ universal laws. People have to freely assent to Catholic beliefs.
No one is forcing an individual person to be Catholic, but he lives in a society in which the majority of its citizens are Catholic. The government is Catholic. The state has made it the official religion. So is free to practice his religion while the state and its citizens practices theirs. Where is the problem? The coercion to practice the religion?
And the 2 principles do contradict each other. An individual could be against the common good. The state has the right to restrict the conduct and actions of its subjects. To restrict their freedoms when the common good requires it and when the freedom of the individual injures or interferes with the common good.
Nobody should be forced to live in any sort of religious state. We are all children of God and human beings first (conception), members of a state second (birth) and members of a religion third (baptism). If you are a member of a different religion or of none, how can you feel like your government represents you when the state has an official religion that you do not believe in?
Also the State only has the right to restrict anyone if it is to protect other people. So if someone is against the common good, or a threat to the security of the State, such as a terrorist, well the State has a right and a duty to do something about it. There is no comparison to what you are advocating.
We are not children of God at conception. We are children of God at Baptism. We are not pleasing to God before Baptism. We are stained with original sin. We are creatures of God who are not yet in his friendship. We become his adopted children when original sin is removed at Baptism and we become members of his Church and body.
It is natural for a state to be religious. It will always end up worshiping someting. God, a false god, or an idol. Christ is the king of the individual and the state. We are Catholic first and beyond our individual duties we have a duty to our society. A duty to restore it to the Catholic ideal if it is not already so.
We are always children of God. Before Baptism we are simply fallen children of God.
No one is a child of God before Baptism. He is a fallen creature. He cannot be a fallen child because the mere fact of conception and birth does not make one automatically a child of God. We are not innocent. With conception, we all inherit the the sins of Adam. We are banished from God. God cannot accept anyone into his house who is unclean and his enemy.
Only with Baptism do we become heirs of God who can enter heaven. Before Baptism we cannot enter heaven and therefore cannot be any type of child of God.
Psalms 8:5-8;
“I look up at your heavens, shaped by your fingers, at the moon and the stars you set firm-
what are human beings that you spare a thought for them, or the child of Adam that you care for him?
Yet you have made him little less than a god, you have crowned him with glory and beauty,
made him lord of the works of your hands, put all things under his feet”
Jer 1:5;
‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you”
I`m beginning to think you are a misanthrope.
God was talking to Jerimiah in that verse. The Haydock commentary mentions that some were of the opinion Jerimiah was purified from his original sin before birth.
As far as Ps. 8 verse 5, the Haydock commentary suggests “the prophet considers the nature of man at such a distance from the divinity. Being, nevertheless, united with it in Jesus Christ, it is raised far above the angels…” In verse 6, Haydock states that while some of the Church fathers believed David was talking about man before the fall, yet he had Christ in view, Haydock states that David could only be talking of none other than Christ.
The teaching of the Church has always been that we become children of God through baptism. You got to read up on the teachings on original sin and baptism. It’s in the catechisms and teachings of the Church.
Romans 5:12
“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.”
Romans 5:18-19
Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.
John 3:5
Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Well, the Catholic Church teaches that only Christ and Mary the mother of Christ were free from original sin.
I think we are getting caught up in semantics here. And we are going off topic. Basically you are talking about being children of God by salvation and redemption through Christ. I am simply saying all human beings by virtue of their humanity and being created by God are children of God. All non Christians are children of God, not in Christ but in God their Creator. The Church preaches that God can even save those that do not receive Baptism or the Faith in this life.
“Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281)
The Church teaches human beings are children of God at Baptism and not before. Humans are not children of God by virtue of their humanity and creation. Because of their original sin, they share in the punishment of Adam. You can’t get any clearer than Galatians 4, where St. Paul says we receive the adoption of children because of Christ. In his Baptism and Church.
Here’s a Catholic article on not all being children of God:
We are not all Children of God
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/children-god
A Protestant article by a Protestant who sees this truth:
We Are Not ‘All God’s Children’
http://www.christianpost.com/news/we-are-not-all-gods-children-114280/
Haha a commenter on OnePeterFive citing a Protestant article. Now that`s ironic.
Well if you`re not going to respond to my points or quotes regarding the topic, I don`t see the point in continuing.
I think I have made my point of view clear enough.
God bless you.
Galatians 4:4-7
But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God.
We are like the Prodigal Son. We sinned against our Father. Came back repentant, saying “I no longer deserve to be your son, treat me as your servant”. But God in his mercy makes us sons again.
I think we are getting lost in semantics.
That is not what the verse is saying. Before the grace of Christ, we were not sons, we only became adoptive sons through Christ. If you continue to read verse 8 and 9, St. Paul clearly states about not knowing God, and in verse 9 states that now we are known by God. There is no prodigal son story here. Adoption by definiton means we become sons, because we weren’t before.
What do you think Christ meant when he said “Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven” ?
Christ was praying that Gods’ will be done as it is done in Heaven.
on Earth
You missed the joke.
To the dear son of Mrs. Murphy, “That is why I believe when the dogma of infallibility became doctrine, the very same year the Papacy lost all its Papal States to Italy”
Hahahahaha……..
As an “Italian” I might add this doctrinal procamation of Infallibility must have effected the other states of the peninsula seeing the Kingdom of Two Sicilies, the duchy of Tuscany and other minor states were dragged into the masonic, anti-catholic kingdom of sardinia… all backed by the unholy trinity SAVOIA-UK-NAPOLEON III……
Ah yes don’t forget the Royal Navy’s participation and did you know the US sent naval miliatry vessels also, yes, that nation closest to truth as you called it.
Surprising isn’t it that the Kingdom of Italy had no peace or unity within its boarders until it made amends and signed a Concordat with the same “Infallible” institution and became a Catholic state (and then undone again with the Concordate of JP II and we see what is happening in Italy today don’t we ? or maybe you don’t not your concern is it ? )
A lot of blowing smoke on this blog and some of it isn’t holy smoke.
I applaude you on knowing exactly the mind and will of Christ and the true deep scripture knowledge concerning the ordering of temporal society and exactly what the kingdom of Christ is. Yes all those centuries, all the misguided in society and the Church, both East and West who didn’t have the true meaning that you have. Yes we are sooooooooo enlightened in this world , sooooo far more educated and know all the errors of the past and those foolish to think temporal power was part and parcel of the salvation plan.
I like your premis that the papacy was punished for being so brash as to proclaim infallibility ! ah yes ! and by your thought pattern what is going to happen to all the former Catholic societies (like the PIIGS) that have now proclaimed secularism with its euthanasia, abortion, destruction of marriage and apostasy ? My dear friend the days are coming when you will wish for a theocracy even the smell of one. Well said Isaiah the prophet…… they call evil good and good evil , it is very interesting what you believe but perhaps a good history lesson would be more realistic ……. buona giornata
Ehhhh mate, you completely misunderstood what I said!
Maybe it`s because your Italian, as you stated, and English may not be your first language. So it`s cool.
You claim that I was saying “that the papacy was punished for being so brash as to proclaim infallibility”….Ehhh no I didn`t say that.
I said that I believe God was demonstrating to the Church, where its’ true power lies, which is in the moral truths she preaches and teaches, when the dogma of Infallibility was proclaimed the same year, 1870, the Papacy lost the Papal States.
To me I see this as God saying as he said already in Scripture “My Kingdom is not of this world”
The Papacy should never had temporal power over kingdoms or armies.
who said the Papacy should never had temporal power ? I didn’t see any major rebellions from the locals ????? There were bishops holding temporal power all over East and West.
In my opinion thank God it did for centuries if not for the Papacy the rest of the barbarians would have eaten Italy alive while you all watched………. like most of Europe did with the Ottomans …… 1870 was a very good year, temporal power was taken away from a benevolent Papacy and replaced with a masonic , vicious king and his company …… go read about Fenestrelle Europe’s first lager and mass immigration, and stripping of church property and plunder of the people…… I’ll take a temporal Pope over a secular, masonic king any day. You are thoroughly a product of the Enlightenment which was a product of a burnt out Reformation.
Christ said “My Kingdom is not of this world”. He also said “Give unto Caesar what is Caesars’ and to God what is Gods'”
Eh, I`ll take Christs’ words over yours anyday.
Yes, so there is a distinction between Church and State, just not a complete separation. No society has any hope of having decent justice without the Faith.
St Pope JP II “The Church imposes nothing, she proposes”.
That is my belief in a nutshell.
This is true in terms of conversion, but not in terms of the governance if the state. A confessional state need not be oppressive. It would be more just than the US, particularly in marriage law. Your objections are rooted in bad ‘enlightenment’ philosophy.
Nope my objections are rooted in my God given freedom.
why should I believe St Pope JP II is wrong?
I *could* flip this around and say: “Why should I believe that Pius IX is wrong?”
But as it happens, Vatican II is actually of some help here (and John Paul II is nothing if not a son and defender of Vatican II). See the opening of the Declaration of Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, where it does quite expressly say, in regards to existing teachings like that of Pius IX: “Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”
That still leaves some tensions in what else is in the document and pre-conciliar teachings, of course; but the document could never have passed without that qualification added in.
This is exactly what I am saying. People cannot be forced to accept the Catholic Church. But this does not excuse them from searching for the Truth.
But do you actually think that a Catholic confessional state means forced conversions for everyone?
No of course not. But it means that all State Institutions profess the RCC as the ultimate moral authority. This is not right. As Catholics we BELIEVE the RCC is the ultimate moral authority, and live our lives accordingly. It cannot be imposed.
I gave a title of a book on this subject elsewhere in this discussion. Please read it, or a work of similar depth and doctrinal soundness. If you like, we can continue the discussion afterward.
This is not right.
But why?
Because this is matter of faith and belief, not of provable fact. That is the whole nature of Christs’ message. To say “I believe” and live accordingly. The “proof” of your belief is the result of living the Catholic life. People will then freely accept the truths of the Catholic faith and hopefully live accordingly. As St Pope JP II said “The Church imposes nothing, she proposes”
On the contrary, it is most just.
I disagree.
Clearly
But this does not excuse them from searching for the Truth.
To its credit, the Council in Dignitatis Humanae is prescribing something more than that here. It speaks of not just the moral duty of “men” but also “societies” – and in the context of the original Latin, that is clearly a reference to civil societies. Which by the way does not entail forced conversion.
Absolutely. Society has an obligation to seek the truth in all things. But if it chooses not to. So be it. It will die. “The wages of sin is death”
Because your beliefs will result in such a relativistic society that it will not survive. A society based on truth revealed by Christ will be blessed. This may not appear to be “fair” but it is nonetheless the truth.
Absolutely. Sure this is what is happening now. “The wages of sin is death”. But this is the choice made by people who have God given free will to choose.
As it says in Ecclesiasticus 15: 14-18;
“He himself made human beings in the beginning, and then left them free to make their own decisions.
If you choose, you will keep the commandments and so be faithful to his will.
He has set fire and water before you; put out your hand to whichever you prefer.
A human being has life and death before him; whichever he prefers will be given him”
Only when the Truth of Catholicism is voluntarily accepted and adhered to will humanity have peace. As St Pope JP II said “The Church imposes nothing, she proposes”
Stop having kittens. Take a deep breath, and consider the possibility that modern ideas are dumb, and that you might be wrong.
I`m as cool as a cucumber. I have studied and prayed. I agree with St Pope JP II and the Declaration on Religious Freedom.
The capital letters made you look slightly hysterical
They`re just for emphasis.
Because Error has no rights!
Free Will does.
We have the choice, but no ‘right’
We have a right to a choice.
I believe the devil said something similar in the garden of Eden.
Nope God said it in the Scriptures.
As it says in Ecclesiasticus 15: 14-18;
“He himself made human beings in the beginning, and then left them free to make their own decisions.
If you choose, you will keep the commandments and so be faithful to his will.
He has set fire and water before you; put out your hand to whichever you prefer.
A human being has life and death before him; whichever he prefers will be given him”
Why do you keep ignoring this?!!!
Not ignoring.
We have two faculties of the soul. Understanding and free-will. Free will is more than what you are describing, it is not primarily something to allow the choice to be able to do ‘whatever’, so much as to facilitate us with the power to make decisions. Free will gives a person the ability to make judgements, and because of this to be held responsible for those judgements. And we can choose ‘fire’ but especially because we do have free will we are then responsible for our choices.
My translation (Douay Rheims) of your quoted verse is “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel”
Haydock’s commentary says of this verse “man, in his present state, is declared inexcusable if he yield to sin, as he has still free-will, which may avoid it, with the grace of God…which is always ready to support us”.
And Ecclesiasticus 15:21 “He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man licence to sin”
Our soul was made to reflect the will of God. The modern understanding of freedom is an atheistic one. Ask anyone who wishes to be free from God and they will say ‘what choice does God give, only one, to obey Him, what choice is that? That is not freedom!’
There is no place of choice for all those people who don’t want an afterlife with God, if they even want an afterlife. No eternal ac/dc rock concert, or booze up for the rest of eternity, or grand fishing adventure which never ends etc. etc. There’s hell.
It takes such an amount of grace, to see, that in conforming to the will of God we actually attain true freedom.
People cannot be forced to believe in God. Nor to live according to rules they do not agree with. One of my favourite saint quotes (which escapes me right now due to pregnancy brain) concerns that God forces no one and neither should we. But by quotes such as this, neither is it mean that we are not to live according to God’s laws, nor that it is wrong for society to impose them. There is a delicate balance. And this you seem to say yourself.
God’s will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven!
God bless in abundance!
Sharyn (and sorry if this is all as clear as mud, that pregnancy brain again. All errors here are my own too.)
Again I agree with almost all of what you write here. The part where we are having the problem is; “nor that it is wrong for society to impose them”
Society or the State can only impose laws that pertain to the protection of all individuals rights in the State. So the State makes murder illegal, it makes drunk driving illegal, it makes burglary illegal etc. Anything that involves a citizen infringing on the rights and freedoms of another citizen, the State has the right to impose restrictions.
The State has no right to say to all its’ citizens “We will recognise Jesus Christ as God and working on Sundays is now illegal and so is having sex outside marriage” The State simply has no right to impose such morals on anyone.
People have to voluntarily accept the teachings of Christ, put them into practice, “thereby renewing the face of the Earth”.
I`ll pray a prayer for a successful pregnancy for you. God bless you.
Thank you for this discussion! Time dictates that I must leave it here now. And thank you for your prayers for my wee little one, they are so very much appreciated!
God bless!
Free Will allows us to make a choice. It does not give a right to do wrong. Error Has No Rights. Rights come only from God. Man has free will to choose. Of course, we can choose to do wrong but we have zero right to do so. God gave us an intellect, conscience and free will to select right over wrong. We are required to use our intellect to properly inform our conscience which then permits us to use our free will to make the right choice. Original sin of pride is always in play. God sent His only Son to take care of that as well. Thank the Lord for His kindness and mercy.
I never said “we have a right to do wrong”.
I said we have free will to choose, just as you said.
This means, we can never be forced to do the right thing. We have to be left alone to choose it. It`s a very simple concept. I don’t see why all the confusion.
God never forces anyone to do the right thing, just has he didn`t force Adam and Eve. They chose wrongly. They suffered the consequences. “The wages of sin are death”.
Ironically, it is people who think they can impose righteousness on people who are acting in pride, just like the Pharisees. “You strain on a gnat and swallow a camel”
A Pharisee is a person who place rules above their love for God. Someone who is on fire with a love of God and neighbour will be a lover of rules, according to God, and no Pharisee.
Know you were very busy and overlooked the “Our Father”…which is directly on point.
The state is always confessional. Always. As a Catholic, I would rather live in a Catholic confessional state (NB not a ‘theocracy’). I consider this to be an uncontroversial statement. But, for modern Catholics, it can be hard to get our heads around.
Well, the State has no right to confess anything that is not held by its’ citizens. The State has no right to impose any religious beliefs on its’ citizens.
All authority comes from God, not from man. You’re thinking with the enlightenment philosophers, most of whom hated the Church.
Absolutely all authority comes from God. So does free will. A little point you are overlooking.
Do Catholics currently get to live under good and right laws regarding marriage? No. We are heavily oppressed to the point where abandoned spouses are penalised by the wicked secular courts giving the guilty spouse the home and children. Is this justice? No.
Two wrongs don`t make a right. Yes those are injustices. The pendulum has swung too far. Let us bring it back to the middle, not swing it back the other way.
1. A Catholic state is not wrong.
2.Just laws are not wrong.
I disagree with your first point. I agree with your second.
Your disagreement with the first is erroneous, due to wrong enlightenment philosophy. The state is always confessional in practice and must therefore be Catholic to ensure justice. This cannot simply be imposed from nothing. In practice it could only come about after the free conversion of most of the population. There is no such thing as a neutral, secular state. It is a fiction.
The US is about the best example.
It ensures religious freedom and justice for all.
Lol! The Great Toilet Liberation of 2016 means freedom for sex offenders to perv on women in bathrooms. And worse, many of your compatriots are OK with this.
The US system is pretty neat actually, but could really only work as a proper confessional state.
You just don`t get it! Do you think I agree with the way the US and the world is going?..No I don`t.
“The wages of sin is death”
But people have free will. They will die. They will suffer the consequences. So be it.
My point is simply that what you favour does not work. This crazy garbage is the consequence of the secularist state. In no way can it be promoted by people who care about justice.
No this crazy garbage is the result of the pendulum swinging to far to the other side. This was facilitated by centuries of the Church hierarchy ingratiating themselves to the temporal powers of this world. What we are experiencing now is simply blowback. People are fed up with religion meddling in their private lives by using government power. People have to voluntarily accept the truths of Catholicism and never have these truths imposed on them. When this current craziness has ran its’ course, then hopefully people will come to their senses and the pendulum will settle in the middle.
No pendulum, just a fiction of a ‘neutral’ secular state. Does not exist.
I disagree. Ireland, Europe and the US would all work fine if we just realised that freedom doesn`t mean; freedom from, it means freedom for.
A secular state could never keep a system going in which the truth about freedom and justice were maintained over the long term. Eventually, relativism would take over, as it has done.
Yes it could and does. Unfortunately the desire and effort needed to keep it going is not there.
It manifestly does not. Every single secular society is going down the same toilet. That’s because it has nothing above itself to guide it in understanding justice.
You are confusing the existence of objective moral truth, which is written in the heart of man, with revealed religious truth, as revealed in Christianity, all which have the same origin, God. A secular state can survive and be stable, once it recognises objective moral truth and recognises the existence and input of all religious communities in the State. The State does not have to hold one religion above another in order to function. Christianity does not have to be held above any other religion in order to prove it is the One True Faith. The practical results of the voluntary application of its’ teachings will prove it.
But they won’t. They are kicking God out, if they have not already.
‘No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.’ Matthew 6:24
Freedom to do good only exists under a state guided by God’s law.
A Catholic confessional state does not eradicate free will; it places reasonable and moral limits on the licentious exercise thereof.
“Moral limits” that not everyone accepts. For example. I as a Catholic believe contraception is morally wrong. I do not believe however that the State should enforce that belief on citizens who do not agree, because it is an issue of personal morality. On the other hand, I as a Catholic believe abortion is morally wrong. I do believe the State should enforce this because it directly effects another human being. It goes beyond personal morality, because it involves another human being.
So as a quote-unquote Catholic you are fine with people making decisions of murder of children and murder of their own Souls. Right?
Eh maybe you should reread my comment!!!
I said explicitly that abortion should be illegal, because it involves another human being. Contraception, which I believe is immoral, is an issue of personal morality. So the person can choose to be immoral. It is their God given freedom. This does not free them from the consequences. “The wages of sin is death”
“An it harm none, do what ye will.” Where have I heard that before?
Where did I say contraception doesn`t harm anyone. I said it is an issue of personal morality. The person has a God given right to behave morally or immorally. Simple.
If at conception a soul is placed by God in the developing foetus then any contraceptive actually becomes an abortifacient, so there is a case for aligning it with actual abortion/murder certainly for Catholics & Christians. There is, of course, the matter of infidels who have another viewpoint but if the CC was carrying out its mission properly it would be evangelising the world (schismatics, Jews, Islamists, pagans etc.) but it prefers to fall in with Modernism which is a pernicious ideology and as a consequence has lost its own moral compass.
There was a mistype in your post – I do instead of I do not believe the State should enforce this…..
No I said “On the other hand, I as a Catholic believe abortion is morally wrong. I do believe the State should enforce this because it directly effects another human being”
I do believe the State should recognise that abortion is immoral.
Sorry, I misunderstood. I took it the other way, maybe others did too.
Why should the state enforce this? That would be forcing your beliefs would it not? On what basis would you force these beliefs? There are those who believe in gods who do not hate the murder of babies, but glory in it! Why should anything you believe prevent them?
Because it is not a religious belief to know that a life is ended by abortion. It is a fact. Therefore this is the line on which one persons’ rights end and when another persons’ rights are being violated.
It is a religious belief that we have no right to end a life.
‘Thou shalt not kill’
No it is a universal human belief that most religions hold as well.
You are born a human being. You then become a member of a religion.
Religion is a means to the end. The end is God. God is truth and love. He gave us free will to accept or reject him. We have no right to take that away from anyone by imposing a Catholic State on anyone.
“Modern religion affirms just as much of spiritual moral truth as in a given condition will keep society together – just so much and no more. It affirms not the whole law of God, but extracts from it, and only those extracts which seem to be most useful for social purposes, and of which society itself will approve. For example, at the present time it dilates on the Sermon on the Mount, but says absolutely nothing about the Last Judgement. It quotes, “Behold the lillies of the field,” but never the text, “What exchange shall a man give for his soul?” Again, modern religion sternly condemns murder and punishes it by death, and all this in strict accordance with the Divine Law: but it also permits divorce and marriage after divorce, a proceeding which Our Blessed Lord, in very express terms, condemned as adulterous and wrong. In other words, modern religion has approved one aspect of the Divine Law concerning murder, and disapproved another, concerning divorce. The reason it does this is because public opinion believes murder to be destructive of society, but does not believe that divorce can be equally destructive of it in the long run. Religion thus compromises, or strikes an average between what is good and what is bad. It approves Christ only inasmuch as Christ approves it. It accepts His teachings and His authority only inasmuch as its maxims and its opinions approve those teachings.
Hence the problem confronting the religious man of today is not whether he will obey or disobey law and authority; but, which of the two he will obey, namely, the authority of public opinion, or the authority of Christ.”
Moods and Truths, Fulton Sheen 1932
You`re selectively quoting and transposing onto a different debate.
Abp Fulton Sheen was an admirer of the US Constitution.
Go on Youtube and look for “Glories of being an American” by Abp Sheen.
Will have to get back to you later if I can Mr. Murphy. It’s Saturday morning and I’m a mum, duty calls 🙂
No prob. Have a great day. God bless you and your family.
Thank you! God bless you too!
The reason for this quote is that, unless you can clarify, you are still insisting that contraception i.e.. the pill does not affect the life of an unborn child. As Ana states the pill brings about the end of a life. The child is able to be conceived but either cannot implant in the womb, or the womb due to the hormone alteration is insufficient to support life at that time therefore leading to an early abortion.
“Abortifacient Contraception” is an oxymoron and a lie. The whole point of contraception is to prevent conception. If the pill kills an embryo, it is by definition not contraceptive but abortifacient. So to clarify, I was talking about pills or contraptions that prevent conception.
Re: Glories of being an American
The Archbishop clearly says the following:
What is “the origin of our rights and liberties?”
“It is a self evident principal that the Creator, the Creator has endowed rights”
“Our rights come from God. And therefore no one can take them away”
“because we have certain rights we must never think that we have them because of the constitution, No, we have them because they are Divinely given”
“Our declaration of independence is a declaration of dependance on God. We are independent because we are dependant on God”
“Our country has theological foundations”
What is he saying? That if God’s laws are given primacy of place in our society freedom can exist.
And another quote from the Archbishop from a different source:
“Even our own so-called liberal culture in the United States, which has tried to avoid complete secularization by leaving little zones of individual freedom, is in danger of forgetting that these zones were preserved only because religion was in their soul. And as religion fades so will freedom, for only where the spirit of God is, is there liberty.”
I wonder what he might have said about the constitution today?
I don`t disagree with anything you have stated here. Abp Sheen is simply talking about the State never forgetting the right to religious freedom and the origins of all rights, which is God.
This does not mean Catholicism should be the State Religion. Quite the opposite in fact.
You must be a great fan of the French Revolution.
No more than St Pope JP II was. Which he wasn`t. Though he did reprimand the French bishops for trying to have a “Church of Power” as he called it. St Pope JP II said “The Church imposes nothing, she proposes”
No one’s perfect.
Hey we agree on something.
🙂
“Only by obedience to the highest law and authority does a man become free.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen.
Absolutely. I agree……But this has to be voluntary obedience. One cannot be forced.
The state *does* confess – in practice – things which are not held by its citizens. Open your eyes.
Also, what Steve said.
Two wrongs don`t make a right. “Be perfect, like your heavenly father is perfect”
Yes, but I disagree that a Catholic confessional state is wrong.
Well we can agree to disagree.
The choice is Catholicism or chaos. (cf Belloc)
“The wages of sin is death”. If people choose this, using their God given free will, so be it.
A Catholic theocracy?
No. A confessional state. Which is a very different thing.
It is. But even then, this is wrong. The State is simply there to protect the rights of each citizen from being infringed. It has no right to impose any religious beliefs on any of its’ citizens. As St Pope JP II said “The Church imposes nothing, she proposes”
That is most certainly not the sole purpose for government.
If this is wrong, however, then the Church has gotten this entire question fundamentally wrong for virtually its entire history – which raises even thornier theological questions. Was what Leo XIII, Pius IX, Pius XI, and so many other popes said simply doctrine that was reformable? If so, how are we to identify that as such?
In fact, John Paul II doesn’t say a great deal on this topic, so far as I have been able to make out, and what he does say comes across as more prescriptive (though admittedly even that would have gotten hostile glares from most of his predecessors) than dogmatic. See for example Ecclesia in Europa 117: “In her relations with public authorities the Church is not calling for a return to the confessional state. She likewise deplores every type of ideological secularism or hostile separation between civil institutions and religious confessions.”
I think those popes were a product of their time, when they had the Papal States to run.
I think George Weigels’ biography of JP II explains his ideas on Religious Freedom brilliantly.
It states “This obligation to seek the truth cannot be fulfilled unless men and women enjoy both psychological freedom and immunity from external coercion”
That so describes the western democracies…we are all free psychologically, as well as immune from external coercion. Lol.
Haha, ye I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far alright. Well it shouldn`t stop us from trying.
1. Technical point: The Papal States were conquered in 1870. The Popes after that point had no sovereign territory to administer until the Lateran Treaty of 1929, which established the present 29 acre Vatican City State.
2. John Paul II’s quotes leaves a number of questions. To the extent that it speaks of coercion, that term needs to be defined; to the extent that it might be referring to confessional states, it would be at risk for suggesting that people in Catholic states throughout the world from the 4th century to the 20th century established conditions under which the obligation to seek the truth could not be fulfilled. Which would leave us in a very strange place.
Ye 60 years of Papal tradition reaching back 1900 years is not that much time. Also Vatican City State is actually over a 100 acre site.
Coercion is very easily defined.
You are right the Catholic Church over the centuries is absolutely guilty of coercion and indoctrination. Thankfully it is learning the lesson. Unfortunately the pendulum has swung too far the other way now.
Coercion is very easily defined.
OK. How do we define it?
You are right the Catholic Church over the centuries is absolutely guilty of coercion and indoctrination.
What would be examples of this?
Thankfully it is learning the lesson.
Does it not call the Church’s truth claims into question that it got something so fundamental so badly wrong for nearly all of its history?
Unfortunately the pendulum has swung too far the other way now.
So where is the “sweet spot,” then? Are there examples of it in action?
Coercion:
1. use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
Take for example Ireland where I live. From 1920’s we had a Catholic confessional state bordering an a theocracy. The Church was dictating to the government what was acceptable or not in the formation of laws, completely ignoring peoples free will to choose.
The Cathar Crusade initiated by Pope Innocent III. A military campaign against heretics.
The burning of heretics at the stake.
I am sure you are aware of many examples, just as I am.
Why do you think St Pope JP II in 2000 asked forgiveness “For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages” and “The Church’s role in burnings at the stake, and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation….etc”?
1. Thanks for the definitions. But I hope you can see how they might not be adequate in this context, since “coercion” is implicated in much that government naturally does. It *is* possible to have a confessional state that does not coerce conversions, for example; and in fact, that has actually been the norm in the Catholic West.
2. But you do provide some examples. I find the characterization of post independence Ireland as “bordering on theocracy” strange, since clerics could not and did not serve in office, and Valera was notorious for keeping Irish bishops at a distance. Yes, Ireland was a confessional state, albeit one that constitutionally gave protections to other established religious creeds (like the Church of Ireland and Jewish groups). It was also popularly elected. So how was the people’s will ignored? And how doe we compare it to the Ireland of today, which sure has abandoned its confessional status, but also sees the Catholic Church in complete free-fall?
And was Pope Pius XII simply wrong when he praised the 1937 Irish Constitution? “Your Constitution (Bunreacht na hÉireann) is intended to be an instrument of ‘prudence, justice and charity’ at the service of a community which has never, through its long Christian history, had any doubt about the eternal, as well as the temporal implications, of that common good, which it professes to seek through the conjoined prayer, toil and oftentimes heroic sacrifice of its children.” Was he wrong?
And then we have the Cathars. Yet the Cathars were engaged in civil insurrection. The campaign against them was, in turn, mainly on those grounds. They were a violent threat to public order.
I’ll be honest: I have always deprecated John Paul II’s apologies, since I think they’re culpable of a willful historical revisionism that serves anti-Catholic agendas – and doesn’t actually reflect history accurately.
I`m not really talking about conversions. I am talking about forcing a certain way of living on all citizens. Like for example, issues of personal morality; contraception, shops open on Sunday, Church holy days as holidays etc.
I as a Catholic believe contraception is immoral, and I like keeping holy the Sabbath day.
But not all citizens should have to conform to this way of living. They have to choose it.
Trust me, it was a border line theocracy for a while. Government policy would rise or fall depending on the nod from the Church. The most infamous being the 1950’s Mother and Child Scheme.
Yes, absolutely people voted for this confessional state and the 1937 Constitution, but we had just exited centuries of oppression of both are culture and religion. We didn`t have much option. The RCC was rightly held in high esteem. It too had suffered and sacrificed with and for the people. Unfortunately, their successors got a whiff of temporal power and they seized it with both hands and wielded it in an authoritarian manner. This has led to the present widespread rejection of the faith and the Church. Thence the free-fall.
Pope Pius was a product of his time. Empires, states, monarchies, democracies, imperialism. Communism, fascism, atheism etc. So many ideologies to deal with that “Little ol Catholic Ireland” was a “grand little country”.
I am sure we could debate back and forth about the Cathars, but suffice to say; the Pope gave the nod to a military expedition. The Papacy should never had that sort of temporal power. Land, armies, political power etc. “My Kingdom is not of this world” said Christ.
Well I guess that is where we disagree. I believe St Pope JP II did a great thing in apologising for the Churchs’ sins over the centuries.
And Mr Weigel is right I think, in this particular statement, but the only system where this truly exists is in a state which places God’s law as the highest authority.
And such a society will place limits on what a person can do according to God’s law. Some people will insist their freedom is being denied. There is no getting around the fact that under different systems different things will be declared wrong and therefore requiring some form of punishment. The question is not whether one system or another will prevent people from ‘freedom’ to do things, but which has a right to do so.
Seems like we have none other than the direct words of Christ on the subject…or do you take exception with this “BELIEF?” Or was the “Our Father” just a “SUGGESTION”?
“Our Father, Who Art in heaven. Hallowed Be Thy Name. Thy KINGDOM come, They WILL BE DONE, ON EARTH, AS IT IS IN HEAVEN……
Now what were you saying about “BELIEF”?
Are you really that foolish. Christ was praying that Gods’ will be done “on Earth as it is in Heaven”. Christs’ prayer is that Gods’ will be done. If Christ wanted to force us to do the will of God, we would be nothing better than slaves. God gave us free will. It is up to us to choose to do the right thing.
As St Pope JP II said “The Church imposes nothing, she proposes”
As it says in Ecclesiasticus 15: 14-18;
“He himself made human beings in the beginning, and then left them free to make their own decisions.
If you choose, you will keep the commandments and so be faithful to his will.
He has set fire and water before you; put out your hand to whichever you prefer.
A human being has life and death before him; whichever he prefers will be given him”
Only when the Truth of Catholicism is voluntarily accepted and adhered to will humanity have peace.
Foolish? And who is foolish…..? Certainly not you.
Now you`re getting the idea. Well done you!
Does Pope Francis Understand the Social Kingship of Christ?
“Io posso dire no. Punto.” In English: “I can say no. Period.”
Or perhaps he understands it, he just disagrees with it.
“Does Pope Francis Understand the Social Kingship of Christ?” — this is rhetorical, right?
The only problem is that the Pope did not say “States must be secular”, that is a faulty translation. An accurate translation from the French would be along the lines of “Gelasian Dyarchy”.
Huh?
Gelasian Dyarchy, the concept expressed in Pope St. Gelasius’ Duo Sunt…
Edit: In context, the Holy Father is acknowledging the separation of Spiritual and the Temporal Powers, as was expressed by Pope St. Gelasius
You’re saying that Francis used a word that meant “Gelasian Dyarchy” but was translated as “secular”?
No. I’m saying he used the word “laicity” by which he meant the Gelasian concept.
Uh huh.
I’m not seeing that in the context of his remarks, unless there’s more to the interview than I am seeing. Where are the flags that specifically mark “Un État doit être laïc” as referring specifically to a Gelasian context? Has Francis ever spoken or written publicly about Gelasius’s Church and State relationship?
It comes later in the interview where the Pope speaks about the dangerous tendency to clericalize laymen, that is to ignore the distinction between the spiritual and the temporal. Remember as well that the Holy Father is not a native French speaker, it’s obvious from context that he meant the denotation and not the connotation of laïque.
I feel confident in the assumption that not a single Frenchman reading that La Croix article thought – even for a moment – on the Gelasian Dyarchy. Generally, laïcité refers to the principle of separation of church and state; specifically, it refers to the exclusion of the Catholic Church from influence over public institutions. To say that the state should be laïque means that it should in no way be confessional, as is made clear in the very next statement: Les États confessionnels finissent mal. He’s arguing against a confessional state, and that is the point to which Father is responding.
That’s my sense as well, RC. I’m not sufficiently fluent in either French or present political discourse in France to be completely confident in my sense that there’s no other way a French reader could read it, but I would frankly be astonished if proved to be otherwise.
French: Un État doit être laïque.
It’s true that the historical record of confessional Catholic States has been far from stainless: it has often been marred not only by excessive intolerance of minorities, but also by harmful government interference in church affairs. But in this fallen world, disestablishment eventually turns out to be worse, as we are now finding out the hard way in the apostate West.
Perfectly said, Fr. Harrison.
After reading the comments maybe someone should jump in here and define the distinction between a Catholic confessional state and a Catholic theocratic state. Be concrete.
Though Orthodox (and to the consternation of a few readers here) Russia is quickly returning in being a confessional state.
Catholic Encyclopedia > S > State and Church [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm]
I would go far as to mention an Annual Renewal of the National Consecration to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts in the Hypothetical Constitution of the Confessional State.
Everyone thinks that a Catholic promotes the mixing of religion and politics, we Catholics believe religion is more important than politics, that’s we must submit politics to religion, not blend them. It’s those that blend the two that make a religion out of politics and make a church out of the State, and holy orders out of political parties.
Pope Francis embraces the indifferentism espoused by Freemasonry. Indifferentism promotes the idea that no religion is any better than an other. Referring to Freemasons, Pope Leo XIII wrote in his encyclical, Humanum Genus in 1884,
“… they endeavor to bring about this
result — namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may
become of no account in the civil State; and contend that Church and State ought
to be altogether disunited.“
Who is “pope” Francis one could say.
The Kingdom of God/Christ here on earth is ought to rest on two shoulders: the Church/sacerdotium on the one hand -and- the Imperium/Christian State on the other. Pope and Emperor together are obliged, in a christian way, to rule the Church and Christendom for that is the Divine will.
In fulfilling this Divine will pope Leo III. crowned the king of the Franks, Charles the Great, as “Roman” Emperor/Caesar/Kaiser on Christmas day in the year 800. Charles the Great did not crown himself nor wanted to be crowned, but the pope crowned him. So from that time on until the 19.th and even 20th. century we had this two powers side by side according to the will of God. It must perhaps be mentioned that most of the popes were italien and the Emperors/Kaiser always of “german blue-blood”.
The Emperor/Kaiser was the patron of Church and Christianity. Now, if someone had the idea to weaken the bonds of Pope and Emperor and to destroy both he had to try to divide them and attack and beat them individually. And exactly this was done by the freemasons in the last 300 years or so. That`s why we had the two World Wars by always preaching “democracy”/demo-crazy taken as reason against the Christian monarchies. (Democracy cost more lives than anything else- apart from abortion.) That`s why Germany+ Austria and the Vatikan were always attacked by the “Free”masons. Democracy paved the way for A.Hitler and Germany had been completly destroyed – not alone, but also by her own mistakes. After 1945 remained the Vatikan/the Church to be fully destroyed. That`s where we are standing now.
Now, since 1945 we have had two main “opposite” powers in the world: the U.S.A. who are (still) governed by the “liberal” masons and the Soviet-Union by the communist masons. There is and there was no real contrast/antagonism between the liberals and the communists.
1517: away from the Church
1717: foundation of the freemasonry in London: away from faith
1917: communistic overthrow of Russia: away from God
What will 2017 bring about?- True freedom for the United States and thus many other freemason-states? Freedom for the communist countries? Freedom for the Church and erecting again the Kingdom of God with Pope and a Christian Emperor side by side for the salvation of Christendom and mankind?
When all is said an done I would settle for freedom of religion which certain exceptions like Sharia law which would be forbidden. Another point against the confessional state is how does one criticize the Church, like we do on the site? Such an act could have dire consequences. And another thing with the Church in its current secular and liberalized state, and in bed with most modern governments, who would defend Catholic teaching? Conclusion: A Confessional state is not such a good idea.
Related (see link below).
The Ship of Peter has been launched in seas boiling, broiling, wild and stormy. The dhimmi Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne is at the (at least, the German) helm. With no mission, no port-of-call but to obey the alien sirens whistling their temptations, paying no heed to no harbor master.
So here he is, this dhimmified Catholic Cardinal, in his little boat rescuing what should be drowned in the roaring waters of the sea – Islam – leaving Christendom to cling to Europa’s battered shores.
_______________
[The next time a thousand Muslim males go on a rampage – on a holiday – molesting and raping inside and outside his cathedral, maybe he can set up welcoming tables to serve Bavarian beer and apple strudel!]
http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/05/the-dhimmi-archbishop-of-cologne-is-at-it-again/
Everyone seems to have forgotten Pope Benedict XVI’s 2008 discussion of laïcité, “I am firmly convinced that a new reflection on the true meaning and importance of laïcité is now necessary,” and “the roots of France – like those of Europe – are Christian.” It’s obvious from the context that our former Pope Benedict, and our current Holy Father intend the same meaning, distinction and not outright separation of Church and State, as was always practiced by the Church.
My Take
Opening
And Secular Clergy [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13675a.htm] live in the world as opposed to the religious in the cloister.
*
Church Teaching & Understanding
It is clear then that if the Church recognizes the diversity of political regimes provided they contribute to the good of the community, there CANNOT be one and only ONE political regime that she could endorse, and that would also be something beyond her competency. This is also common sense since State power comes from God and he can grant it to whomsoever he wishes.
In all of these diverse political regimes, the optimum mutual corporate relationship between the Church and state ought to be worked for and sought after for the good of the supernatural [Church’s competency] and temporal [State’s competency] aims of the men and women in that particular state.
*
Conclusion & Remarks
We are now very much acquainted with Pope Francis’ style and m.o., his utterances and their purpose [they end up in his magisterial acts], so when faced with an utterance such as:
1) Bishops/Prelates, Clergy & Laity, and the Press ought to first ask, ‘Holy Father, what do you mean, what does this mean,’ and also have him clarify the conclusions that can be drawn from such utterances.
2) Exercise caution in jumping to the conclusion and stating e.g. ‘words cited above go directly against the Catholic doctrine of Christ’s social kingship [not sure what this doctrine is or means] or ‘Pope Francis Departs from Church Teaching’.
3) From Church teaching and understanding I have presented above, and from the definitions and understanding of the word “secular”, since the purpose and aim of the State is concerned with temporal affairs for the good of the community, the state is inherently and naturally secular, and ought to be and stay that way.
4) Catholic Encyclopedia > S > State and Church > Union of Church and state
From this, even in the ideal for the Church, i.e. in the Catholic State, the State is still secular with an essential purpose the temporal happiness of its citizens.
5) The words of concern are not [s]tates must be secular, which is true because states ought to know, be concerned about, and carry about its essential purpose, which is the temporal happiness of its citizens, the words of concern are the ones that immediately follow [c]onfessional states end badly, because the conclusion one is being led to draw is that there CANNOT be even a Catholic State, the one state the Church considers ideal [with a caveat of course].
6) In the Day of the LORD that is coming [to me very soon], God judges all Nations, and the fate of all Nations forgetful of God is departure to Sheol.
7) As for the Father’s Kingdom, the Kingdom of his Beloved Son, it is realised more and more in us as we and other’s come to grace and grow in holiness. Its definitive realisation is in God’s hands according to his timetable, and that’s why we have to continually beseech him, Maranatha, Our Lord, come!, Thy Kingdom come!
Does Pope Francis Understand the Social Kingship of Christ?
That’s like asking… Do Chickens Have Lips? or “Can Turkey’s Fly?
All three answers are self evident. Big N, Big O, NO
Actually I would say that he definitely understands it and does everything possible to work against it. He plays his Columbo role all too well.
Poland is about to recognize and embrace the Social Kingship of Christ.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2081813615377092&id=100006454201292&ref=bookmarks
I’ll take a theocratic Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
“Religious freedom” an impossibility. Militant secularists talk openly about “payback” against conservative Christians. Taking our kids away, harassing homeschoolers, bankrupting religious schools, desecrating churches with gay marriages. It’s all on the table. Either you impose your views on others, or they will impose their views on you. That’s how the world works.
There is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian”.
Of course no Christian would have the nerve to reject the term, but in a debate with Mark Steyn, Simon Sharma, said that he, a jew who did not believe Jesus was messiah, regarded the term as nonsense.
Good article… Thank you for sharing this…