R.R. Reno, Editor at First Things recently penned a blog post, Duck and Cover Catholicism, reacting to the Indiana bishops’ weak-kneed statement on their state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
About the statement, Reno said:
As I expected, the leaders of the Catholic Church have done everything they can to avoid saying anything in response to the furor over the Indiana RFRA. Their counsel is “dialogue,” an unfortunate weasel word long used by administrators who don’t want to take a stand.
He alleges that the bishops are unwilling to take a stand because they wish to “avoid controversy” and will therefore “accommodate … whatever sexual regime dominates our society.”
On this note, he’s correct, but his conclusion is every bit as flawed as the statement he is criticizing:
What they should have done is patently obvious. We need religious leaders to denounce the hyperbolic propaganda for what it is and express unequivocal support for the Indiana RFRA. Such a statement would reflect a sober assessment of what best serves the common good and promises to protect, however imperfectly, the freedom of Christians (and Jews and Muslims and others) to teach, educate, and serve in accord with traditional moral teaching about sex, family, and marriage.
Apparently, Reno didn’t read the Indiana RFRA very carefully.
If he had, it would be clear to him that the Act has nothing to do with activities that are “in accord with traditional moral teaching;” it makes no such distinction.
The only measuring stick it proposes in order to determine what is protected and what is not is “compelling government interests” as determined by guess who; the government.
That said, Reno is at least faithful to his employer.
First Things was founded on the condemnable notion that the common good can be well served in a State that places the false religions of the world on an equal footing with the one true faith, as if religions that lead people away from Christ and His Church are as valuable to society as the Catholic faith.
When you get right down to it, there really is no such thing as “traditional moral teachings” properly speaking; there are only moral truths and misrepresentations of the same, and like it or not, the Lord has ordained but one voice in the world to teach humanity which ones are which, without error, in His name, and that’s the Holy Catholic Church.
Unless and until our bishops (including the one in Rome) are willing to say so, the LGBT movement will continue to dominate our society virtually unopposed.
Speaking of Catholic bishops who don’t appear willing to speak like Catholics…
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia and Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, along with a college professor and a couple of Baptists, recently co-signed their own statement concerning the Indiana RFRA.
The statement reads:
Now Is the Time to Talk About Religious Liberty
For many religious believers, Passover and the Easter season are cornerstones of the year. Thus our hearts have been especially troubled in recent days by the acrimony and lies surrounding legal efforts, in Indiana and elsewhere, at ensuring religious liberty for people of all faiths.
As Americans commemorate their respective holy days, we urge all our fellow citizens to remember the moral roots of their constitutional system, and to engage in a sensible national conversation about religious liberty. Even those who are not religious have a stake in seeing that our “first freedom”—religious freedom; freedom of conscience—is protected in law.
In recent days we have heard claims that a belief central to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—that we are created male and female, and that marriage unites these two basic expressions of humanity in a unique covenant—amounts to a form of bigotry. Such arguments only increase public confusion on a vitally important issue. When basic moral convictions and historic religious wisdom rooted in experience are deemed “discrimination,” our ability to achieve civic harmony, or even to reason clearly, is impossible.
America was founded on the idea that religious liberty matters because religious belief matters in a uniquely life-giving and powerful way. We need to take that birthright seriously, or we become a people alien to our own founding principles. Religious liberty is precisely what allows a pluralistic society to live together in peace.
Where to begin…
The vast majority of sincere Catholics today have no idea that the notion of “religious liberty for people of all faiths” – taken to mean that the Catholic, the Jew, the Muslim and others all have an equal right to believe and practice their faith as they wish – simply is not a Catholic concept.
The fact of the matter is, however, the Church has repeatedly condemned this error in no uncertain terms.
I doubt that this is the reason Archbishops Chaput and Lori didn’t claim recourse to Christ or His Church for their preposterous ideas, but it is noteworthy just the same who and what they do rely upon.
For instance, notice that they trumpet “basic moral convictions and historic religious wisdom rooted in experience.”
The Catholic, by contrast, would champion only those moral convictions rooted in Christ Jesus; the same that come to us from the Holy Catholic Church that teaches in His name.
Furthermore, Archbishops Chaput and Lori make no bones about their mission, saying, “we urge all our fellow citizens to remember the moral roots of their constitutional system.”
A Catholic who is truly committed to the mission that was given to the Church by Christ, on the other hand, would necessarily encourage others to embrace only that morality that is rooted in Our Blessed Lord, and this en route to entering the Church!
One also notes that rather than look to Christ for wisdom and light, Archbishops Chaput and Lori are pleased to cite Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Has it never occurred to these men that the overwhelming majority of self-identified Jews in this country believe that same-sex marriage is a ‘right” worthy of defending, and Muslims the world over are notorious polygamists?
What an embarrassment this statement is to the Church.
The reason Archbishops Chaput and Lori are unable to provide anything close to a Catholic exhortation is that they are cut from the same disintegrating cloth with which the problem they are addressing is cloaked; the American flag.
When I visited the Catholic missions in California I couldn’t help but be sad that what they labored for in planting those seeds is being trampled on by their own successors.
Louie writes: “The vast majority of sincere Catholics today have no idea that the notion of ‘religious liberty for people of all faiths’…simply is not a Catholic concept”.
Pope St. Pius X clearly demonstrates the Modernist roots of this error, writing in Pascendi, #14, as follows (emphases in bold added):
“For the Modernist Believer…it is an established and certain fact that the divine reality does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the Believer rests, they answer: In the experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists…fall into the opinion of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. This is their manner of putting the question: In the religious sentiment one must recognise a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the very reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God’s existence and His action both within and without man as to excel greatly any scientific conviction….
Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true”.
In contrast to the Modernist error, the Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following rational guidance on religion in its article on “Apologetics”:
“[The aim of apologetics] is to give a scientific presentation of the claims which Christ’s revealed religion has on the assent of every rational mind; it seeks to lead the inquirer after truth to recognize, first, the reasonableness and trustworthiness of the Christian revelation as realized in the Catholic Church, and secondly, the corresponding obligation of accepting it”.
Quite correct, Louie. Almost all Catholics in America are infected with that most vicious virus called, “Americanism”. God gave us all religious liberty and by the good Lord, we will die for that cause! America, God and country, in that order. Americanism makes perfect sense if you are a poorly instructed Catholic and that’s why religious liberty makes sense to about 99 percent of Catholics. When these Catholics have the Catholic interpretation of religious liberty explained to them, the recoil in horror. To them, the Constitution is more sacred than the Church.
What’s needed is a Truth Restoration Act.
Talking of religious freedom:
“Francis deplores ‘complicit silence’ over anti-Christian persecution”.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/04/04/pope-francis-denounces-complicit-silence-over-persecution-of-christians/
## He can thank Paul VI. It was he who required the end of the union of Church in State in so many countries, and it seems not have occcurrred to this liberal that to break the union of the two, combined with the lethal adoption by the Magisterium of the lie of religous liberty in the secuular sense, leeads logically & directly to the paganisation of the State and so, to its ‘complicit silence’ over anti-Christian persecution”.
This is the fault of Paul VI, and of the Popes who have failed so abysmally even to try to correct the damage those errors of his have done. They are utterly deplorable, and what this Pope deplores is their proper and rotten fruit. It is impossible to be surprised by this “silence”, because it is precisely what might be expected, given these horrendous liberal deformations of the Faith by Paul VI. Logic is logic, and works out its proper results whether the blunderer is a 1960s Pope – as here – or a peasant.
Since a Pope was the author of the mischief, it is impossible to blame politicians, people not all of them Catholic ot even Christian, with no reason to be skilled in Catholic, if they have been “silent”. Why should they care about whether Christians are persecuted or not ? It is ludicrous to demand that of them – and this too is an effect of the deChristianisation of public life Paul VI worked so hard to promote. It is hypocritical to blame public figures for lacking the formation & attitudes that a Pope tried to hard to deprive them of – let him be blamed, and not them. I fear that until the Popes learn to put two and two together, & put the blame where it lies, on this deplorable liberal, we are going to have more of these useless lamentations from them.
BTW, the US bishops are wasting their breath – for the religious freedom they are championing is the wicked doctrine of V2 condemned by the Catholic Magisterium, not that of the Church.
skilled in Catholic = skilled in Catholic social doctrine
tried to hard to deprive = tried so hard to deprive
– apologies for the blunders…
“The CDHRI concludes in article 24 and 25 that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic sharia, which is the declaration’s sole source.[7] The CDHRI declares “true religion” to be the “guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity”. It also places the responsibility for defending those rights upon the entire Ummah.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam#Religious_features
To quote the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam:
“The Nineteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (Session of Peace, Interdependence and Development), held in Cairo, Arab Republic of Egypt, from 9-14 Muharram 1411H (31 July to 5 August 1990),
Keenly aware of the place of mankind in Islam as vicegerent of Allah on Earth;
Recognizing the importance of issuing a Document on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a guide for Member states in all aspects of life;
Having examined the stages through which the preparation of this draft Document has so far, passed and the relevant report of the Secretary General;
Having examined the Report of the Meeting of the Committee of Legal Experts held in Tehran from 26 to 28 December, 1989;
Agrees to issue the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a general guidance for Member States in the Field of human rights.
Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made as the best community and which gave humanity a universal and well-balanced civilization, in which harmony is established between hereunder and the hereafter, knowledge is combined with faith, and to fulfill the expectations from this community to guide all humanity which is confused because of different and conflicting beliefs and ideologies and to provide solutions for all chronic problems of this materialistic civilization.
In contribution to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah.
Convinced that mankind which has reached an advanced stage in materialistic science is still, and shall remain, in dire need of faith to support its civilization as well as a self motivating force to guard its rights;
[Articles 1 to 23 follow]
ARTICLE 24:
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.
ARTICLE 25:
The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration.html
## There are many good things in the Declaration, but their subjection to the Shari’ah undermines an otherwise often attractive picture. Since the Shariah has Divine authority in Islam, it is lunacy for Catholic bishops to look for comfort to Islam. If past form is any guide, they will fasten on to the “pro-life” sections of the Declaration, & blithely ignore its fundamental animus, which is an anti-Catholic animus. The limitation of the Declaration by the Shari’ah leaves no place for the religious freedom the U.S. Bishops want to defend. One can only conclude that they know little about Islam – unlike Cardinal Pell, whose assessment, though very polite, is far more realistic:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2006/06/islam-and-us
Thank you Louie and thank you all for the excellent post and comments. Such a needed breath of fresh air!
If “people of all faiths” are entitled – by Divine & not by human law alone – to the same liberty for different beliefs, then either of two consequences may reasonably be inferred:
Either:
1. All religions are of equal value;
or
2. They are all equally valueless.
In no case, however, is there then any reason to prefer Catholicism to any of them. This liberal doctrine produces we fruits we are seeing today, in the indifferentism of JP2 & Pope Francis & of other bishops. By exalting errors so that they have the same rights in the state as the true Faith, one is depressing & humiliating the true Faith so as to give it the status of an error. But by doing so, one is promoting atheism.
The U.S. Bishops have been known to deny U.S. politicians the Blessed Sacrament because of their (very remote) co-operation in abortion. So let us be consistent: if that action is just and right, how is it not just and rights to take the same action against other U.S. bishops, & against the Pope, for their much closer co-operation in promoting atheism & enfeebling their Church ?
One of the most deplorable features of the V2 Church is its hypocrisy – it beatifies the liberal semi-heretic & schismatic Paul VI, while deploring evils of which he was the author or the enabler. The V2 doctrine of religious liberty leads to magic, apostasy, satanic “Masses”, contraception, abortion, body-culture, to the self-gutting of the Church, to the total irrelevance of the Magisterium & the Papacy.
Here here.
‘The disintegrating cloth…’ = corruption, falsehood, antichristism.
–
‘Our First Freedom…’ Why do so many ‘Catholic prelates’ speak as if they’ve just slithered up a tree to speak to a ‘ripe’ victim? The ‘need’ of the ‘Catholic Church’ to excuse its POV by constantly referencing very very popular religious falsehoods as moral authorities is immature, purile, ‘get thee behind me’ stuff – it attacks Christ’s authority every time someone goes, but the rabbis and the imams say… And what’s worse, is the hypocrisy. ‘Novus Ordo Rome’ loves their lgbt on rye, but hold the bacon. Bergoglio struts up and down blessing sins and praising the unrepentent of sins that cry out to heaven , meanwhile, there’s a handful of ‘conservative’ CPees who invoke those who deny Christ when they micely and unmanly, make a squeak in the public arena.
PS. The why? is really simple. They have become protestants. Do they know? But that is the ‘GENIUS’ of the NOVUS ORDO’, which unmakes in worship, teaching and discipline, Catholic Truth; like a ‘pope’ copperfield, right before your very eyes.
–
‘The Catholic, by contrast, would champion only those moral convictions rooted in Christ Jesus; the same that come to us from the Holy Catholic Church that teaches in His name.’
What does satan want? To destroy what God wants. What does God want? We might include a husband and a wife who are aware that their union is more than just themselves…say…sanctified by God. What a prospect.
what good to sweet lies to anybody?
“Has it never occurred to these men that the overwhelming majority of self-identified Jews in this country believe that same-sex marriage is a ‘right” worthy of defending, ”
Not to mention abortion:
“That is, fully 93% of all American Jews support legalized abortion in some fashion. Even political leanings, while influential, are not determinative. Among Jewish Democrats support is 95%, but 77% of Jewish Republicans also favor legalized abortion in all or most cases, far exceeding the rate of other groups studied.”
http://www.jewishjournal.com/judaismandscience/item/the_curious_consensus_of_jews_on_abortion
Or that vast majority of “protestant” Christian ‘churches’ support divorce and birth control (as well as take no stand on abortion (i.e. support choice) and now homosexual “marriage”).
Some systems of non-Catholic belief contain parts which are Catholic.
This varies to degrees depending on the system of belief.
Do these traces of Catholicism in those systems of belief contain any validity?
Or does the non-Catholic part invalidate the trace of Catholicism in those belief systems?
I suppose the argument is really why accept 15% of the truth when 100% of the truth is available?
Dear Louie and all,
With our families self-destructing all around us, we literally felt sick back when Pope Francis first verbalized his criticisms of Christians like us who aren’t smiling all the time. But we notice he broke his own rules about that on Easter Sunday- following his Urbi et Orbi message about ongoing worldwide persecutions of Christians by “Islamic extremists”. The look on his face at the end of this video seems disturbed, even depressed.
https://youtu.be/HrTw1L1FjhM?t=1106
__
If only it were for the right reasons- because the diabolical fog lifted, and he realized that the current state of the world is the direct result of the rebellion against Truth–especially due to that “synthesis of all heresies” Pius X identified so well – called modernism– that has taken over much of the Church, and which his own “confused and vague” words so often foster; and that its concepts, -like “religious freedom” (under discussion here )- fail to acknowlege what God has revealed to all of mankind–that there is only one True Faith, and One King of all Creation- Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and that EVERY other religion contains some number of falsehoods, which links it’s followers to the Father of all lies, and thereby harms us all.
___
It’s obvious that many who believe lies and act on them, become vessels of Satan, rather than Christ to the extent that they embrace evil. We’re seeing the Apocalypse and the dire prophecies of Fatima unfold before us in the world, while the requests of Our Blessed mother are still ignored–probably for the same reasons that the mandate of her Son to “go teach and Baptize all the Nations”, has been denied as God’s will for the “modern” world, while adulterers and sodomites are being “welcomed” to our communities with no intention of giving up their sins, and further duped by that attitude, into mitigating their evildoing.
___
Strip a false religions like Islam of all the violent teachings in the Qu’ran and elsewhere, and you have by what is claimed to be THAT religion- today. But let people follow it in its original purity, and the result is what we see on the video below -in Afghanistan two weeks ago-, when a (mentally ill) woman was accused of burning some pages of the Qu’ran, and a mob of fervent believers then beat, stoned and stomped on her, before tossing her over a bridge and setting her on fire. Watching how they embraced one another afterwards, brings home the full horror of what false ideas can do, and the dire need for them to convert to the teachings of Christ, before we will ever have real peace on earth. One local authority interviewed later, said it was all justified IF she really burned the pages. (warning -it’s disturbing to watch even though the victim is blocked out)
http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/03/21/pkg-kinkade-afghan-lynching.cnn
This is interesting
http://theologicalflint.com/?p=1422
The Popes down the ages have warned against the admixture of truth and lies, saying it can be more dangerous than a pure lie. It makes sense.
Interesting link. I think he tries to convince the reader he’s defending Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium (the Catholic Faith) while not exactly achieving that. Malloy’s attempt to establish what the church is splits it in two. I’ve never heard of the doctrine of the ‘life lived ‘of the Church” but he puts it in opposition to this ‘essence’ thing. At any rate he dismantles the ‘essence’ by raising cultural circumstance (life lived?) to a work of the Holy Ghost as far as I can tell. Wasn’t the work of the Holy Ghost established within ‘the very Church founded by Jesus Christ’? He’s sort of trying to say that the ‘unvintaged’ wine has much to contribute to the vintage of the Husbandman, God Himself.
The Remnant recently featured this Pat Buchanan piece –that says it all.
http://buchanan.org/blog/the-long-retreat-in-the-culture-war-15868?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PatrickBuchanan+%28Pat+Buchanan+Update%29
When will these leaders stop abusing the concept of discrimination? Discrimination is NOT a bad thing…nor a good thing…it is just a concept that can be applied justly or unjustly. We discriminate ALL the time…and it’s a good thing we do! We discriminate against 12 year old’s by not allowing them to drive a car. We discriminate against 99.9% of the population by not allowing strangers into our house without permission. We discriminate by choosing safe neighborhoods to live in. And I could go on. It’s the whole abuse of “judging” all over again. Do these people even think or look up the meanings of words before writing them? It is JUST discrimination to deny sodomy since it is a perversion and thus destroys the human body and soul. Modernists (and many Jesuits) are word snakes. They twist and pervert the words and their meanings to justify and promote their evils.
God bless you Louie for pointing out Catholic truth. A good read on this is Christopher Ferrara’s “Liberty the god that failed”. The Constitution of the US is not divine revelation but a document based on the demonic “enlightenment” which was actually the “endarkenment” in that it removed the Light of the World and logic/reason, replacing it with Man as god and narcissistic reasoning.
God bless~
PS: Our Lord personified “controversial”. If the bishops don’t want to stand for truth and fight for souls, then they need to get out of the way and out of the war.