Author Topic: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance. (Read 435 times)

MarkM · « **on:** **Today** at 04:56:08 AM »

So, in another thread, the discussion turned to whether "heretics should be run through with a sword" etc, i.e. whether the ideal is supposedly capital punishment for heretics in a Catholic State. My answer is no, it is enough for the government to officially promote the Catholic religion without "executing heretics". The below is why. What are your thoughts?

Pope Pius XII in Ci Riesce: "We have just adduced the authority of God. Could God, although it would be possible and easy for Him to repress error and moral deviation, in some cases choose the "non impedire" without contradicting His infinite perfection? Could it be that <in certain circuмstances> He would not give men any mandate, would not impose any duty, and would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false? A look at things as they are gives an affirmative answer. 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 circuмstances> permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a <greater good." https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ci-riesce-8948

MarkM · « **Reply #1 on:** **Today** at 04:57:34 AM »

And here is a historical example of how it worked in a Catholic colony in Maryland under lord Baltimore:

From: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/protin.htm

"8. Catholic Maryland: The First Tolerant American Colony
A. Patrick O'Hare

"Catholics . . . were the first in America to proclaim and to practice civil and religious liberty . . . The colony established by Lord Baltimore in Maryland granted civil and religious liberty to all who professed different beliefs . . . At that very time the Puritans of New England and the Episcopalians of Virginia were busily engaged in persecuting their brother Protestants for consciences' sakes and the former were . . . hanging `witches'." (50:300-01)B. Martin Marty (P)

"Baltimore . . . welcomed, among other English people, even the Catholic-hating Puritans (8) . . . In January of 1691 . . . the new regime brought hard times for Catholics as the Protestants closed their church, forbade them to teach in public . . . but . . . the little outpost of practical Catholic tolerance had left its mark of promise on the land." (9)C. John Tracy Ellis

"For the first time in history . . . all churches would be tolerated, and . . . none would be the agent of the government . . . Catholics and Protestants side by side on terms of equality and toleration unknown in the mother country . . . The effort proved vain; for . . . the Puritan element . . . October, 1654, repealed the Act of Toleration and outlawed the Catholics . . . condemning ten of them to death, four of whom were executed . . . From . . . 1718 down to the outbreak of the Revolution, the Catholics of Maryland were cut off from all participation in public life, to say nothing of the enactments against their religious services and . . . schools for Catholic instruction . . . During the half-century the Catholics had governed Maryland they had not been guilty of a single act of religious oppression." (10)D. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)

"In the 17th century the most notable instances of practical toleration were the colonies of Maryland, founded by Lord Baltimore in 1632 for persecuted Catholics, which offered asylum also to Protestants, and of Rhode Island, founded by Roger Williams." (78:1383)Stories of Protestant intolerance in America prior to 1789 could be multiplied indefinitely. Jefferson and Madison, in pushing for complete religious freedom, were reacting primarily to these inter-Protestant wars for dominance, not the squabbles of post-Reformation Europe. Here we are concerned with the immediate era of the Protestant Revolution - roughly 1517 to 1600, so the above anecdotes will have to suffice as altogether typical examples."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** **Today** at 06:13:28 AM »

Quote from: MarkM on Today at 04:56:08 AM

So, in another thread, the discussion turned to whether "heretics should be run through with a sword" etc, i.e. whether the ideal is supposedly capital punishment for heretics in a Catholic State. My answer is no, it is enough for the government to officially promote the Catholic religion without "executing heretics". The below is why. What are your thoughts?

There is no absolute answer ... as it all depends on prudential considerations about whether it's the prudent course of action in any given circuмstance. In some situations, it might save many souls ... in others it might cost souls (e.g. in a country where there's not a very large Catholic majority, if it were to provoke that non-Catholics to rise up, etc.).

That is precisely what the term "tolerance" means ... that based on prudential considerations it'll be allowed.

But the way you're spinning it here, you're trying to promote it as if it were some kind of ideal rather than merely a concession ... i.e. you're one step from promoting Religious Liberty.

Striving4Holiness · « **Reply #3 on:** **Today** at 08:26:17 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on Today at 06:13:28 AM

But the way you're spinning it here, you're trying to promote it as if it were some kind of ideal rather than merely a concession ... i.e. you're one step from promoting Religious Liberty.

In a non-Catholic state, such as America, do you believe religious liberty SHOULD BE promoted/required? The question only concerns a non-Catholic state, which of course should be a Catholic state, but is not. In this circuмstance, do you believe "religious liberty" is not merely rooted in tolerance, but the ideal that should be legislated?

Everlast22 · « **Reply #4 on:** **Today** at 08:42:13 AM »

Quote from: Striving4Holiness on Today at 08:26:17 AM

In a non-Catholic state, such as America, do you believe religious liberty SHOULD BE promoted/required? The question only concerns a non-Catholic state, which of course should be a Catholic state, but is not. In this circuмstance, do you believe "religious liberty" is not merely rooted in tolerance, but the ideal that should be legislated?

I see what you're doing here. lol

Mark 79 · « **Reply #5 on:** **Today** at 08:46:16 AM »

https://isoc.ws/product/the-star-spangled-heresy-americanism/

Striving4Holiness · « **Reply #6 on:** **Today** at 01:43:41 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on Today at 08:46:16 AM

https://isoc.ws/product/the-star-spangled-heresy-americanism/

Read that many years ago.

Regarding my last post, the root error is separation of Church and state. Once the state is separated from the Church, religious liberty actually becomes the position a Catholic is required to hold, because the state, qua state (i.e., civil power), has no authority in matters of religion.

The state can only exercise authority in matters of religion when it is united to the Church and acting as an agent, or arm, of the Church's coercive power. When the state is separated from the church, it cannot forbid false worship or punish heresy. That doesn't mean its citizens have a moral right to practice false worship or spread heresy; it only means the state does not have the authority to punish it. Hence, the necessary result of separation of Church and state is religious liberty (civil liberty, not moral liberty) for its citizens.

PapalTiara · « **Reply #7 on:** **Today** at 01:59:50 PM »

Quote from: Striving4Holiness on Today at 01:43:41 PM

Quote from: Striving4Holiness 2024-11-06, 12:43:41 PM
Read that many years ago.

Regarding my last post, the root error is separation of Church and state. Once the state is separated from the Church, religious liberty actually becomes the position a Catholic is required to hold, because the state, qua state (i.e., civil power), has no authority in matters of religion.

The state can only exercise authority in matters of religion when it is united to the Church and acting as an agent, or arm, of the Church's coercive power. When the state is separated from the church, it cannot forbid false worship or punish heresy. That doesn't mean its citizens have a moral right to practice false worship or spread heresy; it only means the state does not have the authority to punish it. Hence, the necessary result of separation of Church and state is religious liberty (civil liberty, not moral liberty) for its citizens.

Your claim that Catholics must embrace religious liberty when Church and State are separated is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching. The Church has consistently condemned both the separation of Church and State and the notion that the State should grant equal civil rights to all religions.

Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), explicitly condemns these ideas:

• Error 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” — Condemned
• Error 77: “In this age of ours 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.” — Condemned
• Error 15 (from Quanta Cura): “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” — Condemned

Pope Leo XIII, in Immortale Dei (1885), teaches that the State has a duty to recognize and uphold the true religion:

• “So, too, it is a sin in the State not to have care for religion as something beyond its scope… Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness—namely, to treat the various religions alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.”

Even when the State is not formally united to the Church, it must not adopt religious neutrality or promote religious liberty in the sense of granting equal rights to all religions. The State remains obliged to support the true religion and to restrict the public expression of false religions when necessary for the common good.

Striving4Holiness · « **Reply #8 on:** **Today** at 03:01:28 PM »

Quote from: PapalTiara on Today at 01:59:50 PM

Your claim that Catholics must embrace religious liberty when Church and State are separated is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching. The Church has consistently condemned both the separation of Church and State and the notion that the State should grant equal civil rights to all religions.

Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), explicitly condemns these ideas:

• Error 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” — Condemned
• Error 77: “In this age of ours 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.” — Condemned
• Error 15 (from Quanta Cura): “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” — Condemned

Pope Leo XIII, in Immortale Dei (1885), teaches that the State has a duty to recognize and uphold the true religion:

• “So, too, it is a sin in the State not to have care for religion as something beyond its scope… Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness—namely, to treat the various religions alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.”

Even when the State is not formally united to the Church, it must not adopt religious neutrality or promote religious liberty in the sense of granting equal rights to all religions. The State remains obliged to support the true religion and to restrict the public expression of false religions when necessary for the common good.

Before I ask you several questions, let's read what Leo XIII teaches in Immortale Dei:

"The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right. … There must, accordingly, exist between these two powers a certain orderly connection, which may be compared to the union of the soul and body in man. The nature and scope of that connection can be determined only, as We have laid down, by having regard to the nature of each power, and by taking account of the relative excellence and nobleness of their purpose. One of the two has for its proximate and chief object the well-being of this mortal life; the other, the everlasting joys of heaven. Whatever, therefore in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the civil authority.” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

Question 1: Do you agree with Leo XIII that God has established two powers on earth, one ecclesiastical and the other civil, and that each power "has fixed limits within which it is contained"? Yes or no?

Question 2: Do you agree that in human affairs, "whatever belongs, either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power of the Church"?" Yes or no?

Question 3: If the state fails in its duty of professing the true religion and is therefore separated from the Church, does the state possess authority in matters of religion and the salvation of souls that would permit it to suppress false worship and/or heresy? Yes or no.

If you answer yes to question 3, you just contradicted Leo XIII.

If you answer no, you just confirmed that "religious liberty" must be the law of the land in secular states, since the state has no authority in matters that pertain to "the salvation of souls or the worship of God." As such, that the state must necessarily remain neutral in matters that pertain to religion, precisely because it lacks authority in these matters.

PapalTiara · « **Reply #9 on:** **Today** at 03:05:05 PM »

Quote from: Striving4Holiness on Today at 03:01:28 PM

Quote from: Striving4Holiness 2024-11-06, 2:01:28 PMQuote from: Striving4Holiness 2024-11-06, 2:01:28 PM
Before I ask you several questions, let's read what Leo XIII teaches in Immortale Dei:

"The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right. … There must, accordingly, exist between these two powers a certain orderly connection, which may be compared to the union of the soul and body in man. The nature and scope of that connection can be determined only, as We have laid down, by having regard to the nature of each power, and by taking account of the relative excellence and nobleness of their purpose. One of the two has for its proximate and chief object the well-being of this mortal life; the other, the everlasting joys of heaven. Whatever, therefore in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the civil authority.” (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

Question 1: Do you agree with Leo XIII that God has established two powers on earth, one ecclesiastical and the other civil, and that each power "has fixed limits within which it is contained"? Yes or no?

Question 2: Do you agree that in human affairs, "whatever belongs, either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power of the Church"?" Yes or no?

Question 3: If the state fails in its duty of professing the true religion and is therefore separated from the Church, does the state possess authority in matters of religion and the salvation of souls that would permit it to suppress false worship and/or heresy? Yes or no.

If you answer yes to question 3, you just contradicted Leo XIII.

If you answer no, you just confirmed that "religious liberty" must be the law of the land in secular states, since the state has no authority in matters that pertain to "the salvation of souls or the worship of God." As such, that the state must necessarily remain neutral in matters that pertain to religion, precisely because it lacks authority in these matters.

Contrary to the assertion that traditional Catholic teaching supports the separation of Church and State as a pathway to religious liberty, the Church has historically condemned both the separation itself and the modern concept of religious liberty as understood in secular terms.

“Syllabus of Errors” (1864), explicitly condemns the separation itself and the idea of granting equal civil rights to all religions:

“The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”
— Syllabus of Errors, Proposition 55

Furthermore, Pope Leo XIII in “Immortale Dei” (1885) emphasizes that the State must uphold and support the true Catholic faith rather than adopt religious neutrality:

“Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness—namely, to treat the various religions alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.”
— Immortale Dei, Paragraph 6

These teachings demonstrate that the Catholic Church views the separation of Church and State and the resulting religious liberty as contrary to its doctrine. The State is entrusted with promoting and protecting the true religion, and Catholics are called to uphold this integral relationship rather than accept a secular stance that diminishes the Church’s authority in spiritual matters.

Striving4Holiness · « **Reply #10 on:** **Today** at 03:21:10 PM »

Quote from: PapalTiara on Today at 03:05:05 PM

Contrary to the assertion that traditional Catholic teaching supports the separation of Church and State as a pathway to religious liberty,

Who said that? Did you read my first post? In the first sentence I said: "the root error is separation of Church and state."

That error necessarily results in separation of Church and state. I am not defending the root error; I am saying religious liberty is the necessary result of it. Do you agree?

You wrote: "Your claim that Catholics must embrace religious liberty when Church and State are separated is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching."

After reading what Leo XIII taught, do you still believe the idea that "Catholics must embrace religious liberty (civil liberty) when the Church and state are separated is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching?

PapalTiara · « **Reply #11 on:** **Today** at 05:21:05 PM »

Quote from: Striving4Holiness on Today at 03:21:10 PM

Quote from: Striving4Holiness 2024-11-06, 2:21:10 PM
Who said that? Did you read my first post? In the first sentence I said: "the root error is separation of Church and state."

That error necessarily results in separation of Church and state. I am not defending the root error; I am saying religious liberty is the necessary result of it. Do you agree?

You wrote: "Your claim that Catholics must embrace religious liberty when Church and State are separated is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching."

After reading what Leo XIII taught, do you still believe the idea that "Catholics must embrace religious liberty (civil liberty) when the Church and state are separated is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching?

Catholics must advocate for the union of Church and state. Democracy, as it stands, is not Catholic and arguably played a role in the crucifixion of Christ. In the context of a government like the USA, which is fundamentally Freemasonic and anti-Catholic, the idea of civil liberty is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching. We must reject this separation and promote a state that aligns with the Church’s teachings.

The social reign of Christ The King is theocratic.

Striving4Holiness · « **Reply #12 on:** **Today** at 06:28:20 PM »

Quote from: PapalTiara on Today at 05:21:05 PM

Catholics must advocate for the union of Church and state. Democracy, as it stands, is not Catholic and arguably played a role in the crucifixion of Christ. In the context of a government like the USA, which is fundamentally Freemasonic and anti-Catholic, the idea of civil liberty is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching. We must reject this separation and promote a state that aligns with the Church’s teachings.

The social reign of Christ The King is theocratic.

That's a nice speech, but you are avoiding the main point. In your first post, you said: "Your claim that Catholics must embrace religious liberty when Church and State are separated is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching."

After reading what Pope Leo XIII taught about the limits of civil authority, do you still believe that the civil power in a non-Catholic state, such as America, has the authority to regulate matters that pertain to the worship of God and the salvation of souls? If so, you have rejected the teaching of Leo XIII. If you do accept the teaching of Leo XIII, and now admit that civil authority does not extend to matters of religion, explain how you can possibly oppose religious liberty (civil religious liberty) in America.

Hopefully you will answer the questions this time, instead of rambling on while carefully avoiding the issue at hand.

Striving4Holiness · « **Reply #13 on:** **Today** at 06:45:51 PM »

Quote from: PapalTiara on Today at 05:21:05 PM

Catholics must advocate for the union of Church and state.

Agreed.

Quote

Democracy, as it stands, is not Catholic

Democracy is the form of government, according to which the leads are chosen by a majority vote. Why do you believe that is "not Catholic," especially when Leo XIII explicitly stated that the civil authorities may "be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine." (Diuturnam Illud).

Quote

and arguably played a role in the crucifixion of Christ.

How did Democracy play a role in the crucifixion of Christ when it was not the form of government at the time? Because the unbelieving Jєωs "voted" - "Let him be cricified" - to have him put to death? Sorry, but that has nothing to do with a form of government by which the citizens choose their leader.

Quote

In the context of a government like the USA, which is fundamentally Freemasonic and anti-Catholic...

Agreed.

Quote

the idea of civil liberty is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching.

I think you mean civil religious liberty, not just civil liberty. But your conclusion is wrong. In accord with the teaching of Leo XIII, in a country that fails in its duty to profess the true religion and be united to the Church, the authority to regulate matters pertaining to religions is lacking. Therefore, "in a fundamentally Freemasonic and anti-Catholic country," civil religious liberty is demanded by Catholic doctrine.

Quote

We must reject this separation and promote a state that aligns with the Church’s teachings.

You can personally reject it all you want, but it won't change the reality. And in this reality, religious liberty is required by Catholic doctrine.

Quote

The social reign of Christ The King is theocratic.

Please show where the Church teaches that the social reign of Christ the Kind is theocratic.

PapalTiara · « **Reply #14 on:** **Today** at 07:06:24 PM »

Quote from: Striving4Holiness on Today at 06:28:20 PM

Quote from: Striving4Holiness
That's a nice speech, but you are avoiding the main point. In your first post, you said: "Your claim that Catholics must embrace religious liberty when Church and State are separated is incompatible with traditional Catholic teaching."

After reading what Pope Leo XIII taught about the limits of civil authority, do you still believe that the civil power in a non-Catholic state, such as America, has the authority to regulate matters that pertain to the worship of God and the salvation of souls? If so, you have rejected the teaching of Leo XIII. If you do accept the teaching of Leo XIII, and now admit that civil authority does not extend to matters of religion, explain how you can possibly oppose religious liberty (civil religious liberty) in America.

Hopefully you will answer the questions this time, instead of rambling on while carefully avoiding the issue at hand.

Pope Leo XIII taught that civil authority is subordinate to the moral law and ultimately to the authority of Christ and His Church. In a truly Catholic society, civil authority would acknowledge Christ as King and recognize the Church’s supreme authority in matters of faith and morals. This means the state has no legitimate right to regulate worship or matters of salvation; these belong solely to the Church.

In a secular state like America, where Church and State are separated, we tolerate religious liberty out of necessity—not as a right to be embraced. Tolerance in such a context is a practical concession, not a doctrinal ideal. Catholics must resist the idea that religious liberty, as promoted by liberalism, aligns with true Catholic teaching. True religious freedom exists only when Christ is recognized as King over society, and civil laws conform to His truth. Anything less fails to meet the Catholic standard of justice, as it rejects the rightful social reign of Christ the King.

Author Topic: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance. (Read 435 times)

MarkM

Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

MarkM

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

Ladislaus

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

Striving4Holiness

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

Everlast22

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

Mark 79

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

Striving4Holiness

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

PapalTiara

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

Striving4Holiness

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

PapalTiara

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

Striving4Holiness

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

PapalTiara

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

Striving4Holiness

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

Striving4Holiness

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.

PapalTiara

Re: Catholic Tradition on Religious Tolerance.