1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

  2. Faith Options in Your User Profile
    Please click on the following regarding this important notice in Announcements:

    Faith Options in Your User Profile.

Religious Freedom

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by Fish and Bread, Nov 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fish and Bread

    Fish and Bread Senior Contributor

    Messages:
    12,258
    Likes Received:
    316
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    Christian
    Does the Roman Catholic Church teach that people who practice non-Catholic religions have the right to publically practice their faith and evangelize? Please try to reconcile your answers with both the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Freedom and pre-concilliar Papal statements on religious freedom. Thanks.
     
  2. Rebekka

    Rebekka meow meow meow meow meow meow

    Messages:
    12,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Other-Church
    I would say yes, but that's probably not academic enough for you. My priest friend always begins with explaining the concept of freedom when he's talking to non-christians, and then it soon becomes a talk about catholicism.
     
  3. King of the Nations

    King of the Nations New Member

    Messages:
    3,799
    Likes Received:
    155
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Yes, it does.

    That's all I can give you at the moment. No time to peruse the respective documents for citations.

    Greg
     
  4. QuantaCura

    QuantaCura Rejoice always.

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    287
    Faith:
    Catholic
    This is an often misunderstood topic--I don't have time to provide an in depth answer now, so I am subscribing and will post more later. But for now:

    Essentially, the doctrine of religious liberty is this: the state can neither impede nor coerce someone's search for truth about God and adherence to it.

    Likewise, the state has a duty to promote and defend the common good. This can involve and even require the suppression of false religious activity. If the state does not do so, it's choice cannot be on the basis of religious indifferentism or laicism.

    Here are the appropriate sections form the CCC (a more in depth analysis of the primary texts will be forthcoming):

    2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

    2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

    34 DH 2 § 1.
    35 DH 2 § 2.
    39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.
    40 DH 7 § 3.
     
  5. Virgil the Roman

    Virgil the Roman Traditional Catholic

    Messages:
    10,489
    Likes Received:
    17
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
    When then do we not encourage our respective governments to crush the Heresies of Modernism, Protestantism, Gnosticism, Mohammedanism, and as well as the Infidelities of the False Pagan Religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, and the various other Religious Sects, in an effort to promote the One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Why Error must be tolerated?-----I see no reason as to why. To so would invite those heresies to corrupt our fellow Catholic Brethren and dissuade potential converts from the Holy Catholic Faith? Did not either Pope Pius X or Pope Leo XIII condemn the seperation of Church and State, and state that it is the duty of the State to foster, encourage and promote the One True Holy Catholic Faith?
     
  6. Virgil the Roman

    Virgil the Roman Traditional Catholic

    Messages:
    10,489
    Likes Received:
    17
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
    But the Catholic Church tolerates the "Freedom Of Religion" so as far as the end-goal is to promote an environment that would allow the facillation and spread of the Holy Catholic Faith, right?!:scratch:
    Is not the sole goal of religious liberty create an environment tolerable of the Catholic faith, when otherwise, this would not be possible. Should when a community has a Catholic majority, be duty-bound to evangelize, and thereby spread the Holy Catholic Faith?
     
  7. King of the Nations

    King of the Nations New Member

    Messages:
    3,799
    Likes Received:
    155
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
    This looks like it may end up being a great, great discussion and I'm really looking forward to it. An issue that I dont think we talk about too often...

    Ehhhh....*grimace*...No. Not exactly...

    I look forward to Quanta's post on this. For now I'll say that the goal of religious liberty is the same (in my view - please someone correct me if I'm wrong) as the goal of something like a consciencious objection clause in military enrollment, or in the exercise of professional functions wherein someone is asked to do something (such as fill a prescription for an abortion pill) that goes against their personal beliefs.

    Religious freedom is about respecting people's conscience, whether the people are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, or whatever...

    The evangelization of the world is a separate issue, which, of course, would be helped by this teaching. But it's not as if the Church sat down at a strategic planning meeting and said, "Ok, so, as far as the evangelizing of peoples goes, what can we do to 'get our foot in the door' in places where they don't like us...??? Hmmmm. I know! We'll assert a right of all people to believe whatever they want to! Then later, we'll bring in the missionaries and make 'em believe the right stuff..."

    Catholics are duty bound to evangelize whether they are in the majority or not.

    Peace,

    Greg
     
  8. King of the Nations

    King of the Nations New Member

    Messages:
    3,799
    Likes Received:
    155
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
    I'll get to this one later tonight or tomorrow.

    Quick preview: See if you can track down what Jesus said about the angels tearing out the wheat with the weeds...

    Greg
     
  9. King of the Nations

    King of the Nations New Member

    Messages:
    3,799
    Likes Received:
    155
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Because it is neither the job of the Church, nor the State to force anyone to convert to the Catholic faith.

    Coercion has never been a part of the deposit of faith, even if, in the past, some entities have behaved as if the truth were otherwise.

    It is the duty of every human being to seek God and live according to His ways as best they know how. Ultimately, it is not so much what we believe that matters, but who we are instead that counts. (See Romans 2) This said, there is a reason for faith, and it is essentially to provide light for one's path.

    It is the job of the Church, since she most accurately "represents" the mind of God, to share with all men the message of salvation and to do all that it can to cause the natural order of things to be in complete conformity with Christian moral principles. It is also the Church's job to do all she can to convince all men of the truth of Catholic teaching. But, little in life is without limits. She, and all entities, must stop short of coercion in regards to its "persuasion" of all to live the truth because not even God himself forces men to believe in Him or to act uprightly, according to His ways.

    Sure, any given State would have the firepower to "wipe out the infidel", to kill everyone that doesn't believe in the truth of the Catholic faith. But, frankly speaking, there are many human beings out there who are better Catholics than many Catholics are, if you follow me. Again, see Romans 2. See also Jesus' reference to the angels wiping out sin from the earth. He says that if they were to do so, everyone would end up scratched and bruised from their blades essentially because sin is everywhere - not only in incorrect religious doctrine.

    ;)

    Peace be with you.

    Greg
     
  10. QuantaCura

    QuantaCura Rejoice always.

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    287
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Right now I want to deal with the issue of religious liberty. "Separation of Church and State" is a different, yet related issue for later in the thread (for now, let it be said that there is a true separation--two spheres, temporal and spiritual, governed by two powers, state and church--always and still affirmed and a false separation--the state acts without any reference to objective truth--always and still rejected).

    A "hierarchy of truth" approach is the best to understanding religious liberty. This does not mean that some truths are more important than others, but rather understanding certain truths requires understanding others first.

    The first such truth is the dignity of the human person as a creature of God who's end is also God. All men share this common end. (Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, 38). Therefore, by their very dignity all men have the right to pursue that end. Rights exist so duties can be fulfilled. Since men have the duty to God to pursue this end, the state can never impede this pursuit.

    The next truth we must understand is that faith must be free. Man cannot be coerced into coming to God. (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 104; Leo XIII, Imortale Dei, 36; Bl. Gregory X, Protection of the Jews, 3). The state can therefore never coerce man to the truth and to God against his will. It bears pointing out here, that when the Church sanctioned force by the state against non-Catholics, it was never on the grounds of forcing conversions, but rather to protect the just ordering of society, whether or not they were right in seeing such individuals as threats to that order. (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine, Treatise on the Civil Government, ch. 21)

    These are the bases for the Church's doctrine of religious liberty. However, there is also an erroneous version of this doctrine which was popular in the 1800s and a result of the excesses of Liberalism. I would like to now work my through some relevant documents from that period through Dignitatis Humanae from the Second Vatican Council.

    The first text is the passage cited in the CCC 2109 (see post #4 above) from Quanta Cura by Bl. Pius IX (which I will divide in two):

    For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require."

    First, we must avoid "naturalism:" that is, the idea that civil society should be absolutely free from any acknowledgment of God or without any distinction between truth and error in regards to God. Likewise, the state must protect the rights of the Church.

    From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

    Here we must also bring forth the citation to Mirari Vos by Gregory XVI. He is concerned with the rationalists who deny the necessity of faith for salvation:

    Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.

    Here we see he is not concerned with the Catholic notion of the liberty of conscience (more on this later), but rather the notion of it based on religious indifferentism:

    This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone.

    So, the second error we must avoid is that freedom of conscience based on religious indifferentism, by which man's conscience cannot be bound in any way, by God, by the Church, or by the state. The third, and related error to be avoided, is an absolute freedom, whereas the state can never limit in any way false religious activity, false speech, or false publishing.

    These same errors are also summarized in Immortale Dei by Leo XIII, paragraphs 25 and 26.

    Now we will begin to see how these principles are synthesized and put into practice.

    Next, Leo XIII in Libertas draws the distinction between true and false liberty of conscience:

    30. Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands.

    He then adds a note about how the state can act in a practical situation:

    For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue.

    Here he rules out the right to err (see also CCC 2108), but at the same time affirms that it is permissible to tolerate errors to prevent a greater good from being impeded.

    Pius XI also, in passing, differentiates between true and false freedom of conscience in Non Abbiamo Bisogno:

    We lately declared Ourselves happy and proud to wage the good fight for the liberty of consciences. No indeed (as someone, perhaps inadvertently, has represented Us as saying) for "the liberty of conscience, which is an equivocal expression too often distorted to mean the absolute independence of conscience and therefore an absurdity in reference to a soul created and redeemed by God.

    Next, Pius XII, in Ci Riesce takes up where Leo XIII left off in describing practical situations:

    Reality shows that error and sin are in the world in great measure. God reprobates them, but He permits them to exist. Hence the affirmation: religious and moral error must always be impeded, when it is possible, because toleration of them is in itself immoral, is not valid <absolutely and unconditionally.>

    Moreover, God has not given even to human authority such an absolute and universal command in matters of faith and morality. Such a command is unknown to the common convictions of mankind, to Christian conscience, to the sources of Revelation and to the practice of the Church. To omit here other Scriptural texts which are adduced in support of this argument, Christ in the parable of the cockle gives the following advice: let the cockle grow in the field of the world together with the good seed in view of the harvest (cf. <Matt.> 13:24-30). The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to <higher and more general> norms, which <in some circumstances> permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a <greater good.>

    Again, here we see again that suppressing error, while permissible, is subject to other norms, such as the promotion of a greater good. This is the bedrock for the practical decisions in Dignitatis Humanae.

    continued....

     
  11. QuantaCura

    QuantaCura Rejoice always.

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    287
    Faith:
    Catholic
    continued from previous post...

    But before moving onto Dignitatis Humanae, we must address a passage from Pacem en Terris by Bl. John XXIII:


    14. Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. According to the clear teaching of Lactantius, "this is the very condition of our birth, that we render to the God who made us that just homage which is His due; that we acknowledge Him alone as God, and follow Him. It is from this ligature of piety, which binds us and joins us to God, that religion derives its name.'' (l0)


    Hence, too, Pope Leo XIII declared that "true freedom, freedom worthy of the sons of God, is that freedom which most truly safeguards the dignity of the human person. It is stronger than any violence or injustice. Such is the freedom which has always been desired by the Church, and which she holds most dear. It is the sort of freedom which the Apostles resolutely claimed for themselves. The apologists defended it in their writings; thousands of martyrs consecrated it with their blood.'' (11)


    Here, we must note that he is speaking of course of the true freedom of conscience, as is clear by his quotes from Lactantius and Leo XIII (in fact, the quote from Leo is the very next sentence following what I have quoted from Libertas, 30).


    Now we move on to evaluate Dignitatis Humanae, beginning with some preliminary notes:


    We first read the document for what it is. To do this, it is good to consult the relatio. A relatio is an official commentary provided with a Council decree explaining the decree to the bishops who are voting on it. The official relation by Bishop de Smedt states:


    Our decree, since it is pastoral, tries to treat the present matter especially from the practical point of view and, after the manner of John XXIII, will carefully strive to remove the whole question from that world of abstractions which was so dear to the nineteenth century. The question is put therefore regarding real man in his real dealings with other men, in contemporary human and civil societies.


    And again:


    But I beseech you, Venerable Fathers, not to force the text to speak outside of its historical and doctrinal context, not, in other words, to make the fish swim out of water.

    Let our document be studied as it stands. It is not a dogmatic treatise, but a pastoral decree directed to men of our time.

    Now, while the decree deals with truths, it is primarily concerned with time-specific pastoral policies. While affirming the truths above and avoiding the errors, it provides a practical framework for modern, often pluralistic, societies to promote the common good and to foster an environment where the greatest opportunity is present to exercise those authentic rights outlined at the beginning of this little essay and where there is the least danger of infringing upon them. It is also concerned with the other goods of maintaining peace. As this was originally to be part of the document on ecumenism, there is also a desire to remove suspicion of the Church's motives as the relatio explains:


    Many non-Catholics harbour an aversion against the Church or at least suspect her of a kind of Machiavellianism because we seem to them to demand the free exercise of religion when Catholics are in a minority in any nation and at the same time refuse and deny the same religious liberty when Catholics are in the majority.


    In conformity with what certain Popes have stated above, the Second Vatican Council is asserting its mind as to the necessary environment the state must foster to achieve the greatest good in those areas given modern conditions. Pope Benedict XVI explained this aspect of the Council's decree on Religious Liberty recently in this address.

    Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

    It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

    Now, onto Dignitatis Humanae itself. First, we shall see how it rules out those errors above:

    First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you" (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.


    This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.


    Here we see that false liberty of conscience and indifferentism are ruled out as it explicitly states that all men are obligated in conscience The decree also affirms that conscience is not free from civil authority in the false sense either (DH 8, CCC 2238-2240; and of course ecclesiastical authority binds in conscience, cf. CCC 85-87, for example). And continuing:


    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.


    Here we see those errors ruled out which state that civil society has no duty to God or the true religion. The state is still bound by truth. Notice also that the reason for religious freedom is to fulfill the duty to God to come to him as he has made known, through the Catholic religion. This is reaffirmed here:


    10. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7) The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son,(9) cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father,(10) he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life.


    Again, the decree reiterates the obligation binding on conscience while acknowledging that the human person is to be free from impediments and coercion in this regard:


    It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.


    And again:

    God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion.

    The absolute freedom and rights of the Church in her mission, which must be protected by the state, is also affirmed in sections 13 and 14 of the decree. The authentic freedom of conscience by which we come to God is also affirmed (and the evil avoided, as Pius XII and Leo XIII mentioned as a governing norm along with promotion of a greater good, is also mentioned):

    On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.

    This sentiment of avoiding certain evils and promoting greater good by affirming certain civil rights pervades the decree. I will not paste all the passages, as the entire text is available to all online. I will point out one last passage which is important:

    This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

    The acknowledgement of such limits avoids the error of a mandatory absolute liberty in this regard. This passage can be confusing because, while the statement is general and not time specific, the due limits are (from the CCC).

    2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner. The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."

    Theoretically, those due limits could limit all freedom to only those actions consonant with truth. But, as Pius XII stated, that cannot be an ultimate norm. Likewise, theoretically, there would be some maximum freedom allowed while still being consonant with legal principle in conformity with the objective moral order. The actual situation should be somewhere between that and it is a question for the civil authority to decide.

    So in conclusion to the OP's question: the answer is sometimes.

    Anyway, I hope that helped!
     
  12. Ave Maria

    Ave Maria Ave Maria Gratia Plena

    Messages:
    71,605
    Likes Received:
    603
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Catholic
    I hope this answers your question.
     
    QuantaCura likes this.
  13. QuantaCura

    QuantaCura Rejoice always.

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    287
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Good post. I think it was John Paul II who said true freedom is the freedom to do what's right :thumbsup:
     
  14. Virgil the Roman

    Virgil the Roman Traditional Catholic

    Messages:
    10,489
    Likes Received:
    17
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Thanks Quanta Cura, Kingof Nations, and Paladin Girl!e

    Quanta: God is the source of all Love, and is Love itself. And as "Love" (Remember "God is Love"--"Deus Caritas est." No, I've not read the Encyclical, but it is true.) And since He is Love, he desires that man follow and love him willingly. But he cannot force Man to do this, for to do so, would not be Love, but a negation thereof---something God cannot----OR rather WILL NOT do. Thus God, especially in Christ Jesus, loves Man to the point of death upon a cross for man's redemption, salvation, and to bridge the chasm that sin has put between The Heavenly Father and ourselves, which Christ did bridge. Ergo, One must free and freely choose to follow and love God. One must live out the Gospel, with the Grace, and aid of our Blessed Lord. To do so, one must secure in the dictates of their conscience, that YES this is truth, and the Right thing to do. So by such an examination, one can more fully obey and commit one's self towards the Gospel in Love and reflect this selfsame love of God and by God unto others, so that one may be as a Beacon, reflecting the Love, Mercy, Kindness, charity, and Benevolence---that is the Gospel of Christ Jesus unto all, so that in seeing Christ's reflection amongst our souls they may be compelled and drawn by this selfless love unto the Bosom of our Blessed Lord Christ Jesus, and thereby enjoin themselves with his Holy Mystical Body---His Holy Catholic Church.
     
  15. Ave Maria

    Ave Maria Ave Maria Gratia Plena

    Messages:
    71,605
    Likes Received:
    603
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Catholic
    You're welcome. :)
     
  16. QuantaCura

    QuantaCura Rejoice always.

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    287
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Good post. Remember when Sts. John and James wanted Jesus to torch that town of unbelievers?

    Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? 55 And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are. 56 The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town.

    The true Gospel must be given to all men through preaching and love, not by the sword. Yes, the state can step in and suppress false religious activity for the common good (no one would argue, for example, that certain practices of the Aztec religion is unjustly suppressed; certain indigenous religions in the US which use hallucinogenic drugs are also suppressed), but the truth that faith must be free remains.

    And when possible, we should be as a patient as we can with unbelievers remembering how our Lord was patient with us:

    Titus 3:2 To speak evil of no man, not to be litigious, but gentle: shewing all mildness towards all men. 3 For we ourselves also were some time unwise, incredulous, erring, slaves to divers desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared: 5 Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost; 6 Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour:

    :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...