PopeWatch: Bear Growls

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

 

Saint Corbinian’s Bear has an explanation as to why the Pope was silent on the Irish vote on homosexual marriage:

Souls? If you put a gun to the Bear’s head (and you wouldn’t be the first) and asked him who, exactly, Pope Francis believes is on the path to salvation, this most Catholic Bear would have to confess he has no idea what self-proclaimed “loyal son of the Church” Francis believes. His public statements are often little better than a word salad of liberal soundbytes. When he recently tried to make a point about first-worlders wasting money on pets and makeup, his statistics were, to put it nicely, made up. (Or maybe he got them from La Repubblica, the far-left newspaper that is his only source of news.)

In three years your confession will be: “bless me Father, I have sinned. My carbon footprint grew by twenty meters. And I have a Golden Retriever.” Don’t bother with sins of the flesh. After sodomy was normalized they said, “What the Hell. God doesn’t care about that stuff.”
 
It must be exhilarating to take over a Church with no credibility, from an unpopular pope, and overnight turn it into a powerhouse of legitimacy courted by the movers and shakers of the world. What a sore temptation it must be to learn that you can get your face on the cover of the Rolling Stone by simply dropping an ambiguous statement about homosexuality. Obama just held him up as an example!
Back to Homosexuals
 
The Bear wishes he could forget about homosexuals, but here’s the thing. The Bear doesn’t really care what 1-2% of the population does to achieve sexual release. They’re not driving this derangement. 
After civil rights, and gender equality, someone had the stroke of infernal genius to hammer homosexuality’s square peg into the round hole of civil rights. Once gay rights was out of the closet and into the noble tradition of Dr. Martin Luther King, it all fell into place. To oppose it was not merely mistaken, but evil. Haters were beyond the pale of polite society. Soon the law will provide no wall for the normal to take cover behind. Most of this isn’t so much pro-homosexual as anti-Christian.
If the Pope is really all that popular, why isn’t he mounting the counterattack?
Easy. That popularity comes at a price. The referendum in Ireland? Did you find it odd that there was not a peep from the Vatican? The only way Pope Francis keeps his seat at the table is by going along with the world. Christians who fight are going to be mercilessly suppressed. The Church wants the Prince of the World’s favor right now. That’s why it will bend over backwards to accommodate the sin of Sodom.
In the great Christian classic Pilgrim’s Progress (yes, the Bear knows it isn’t Catholic, but he still likes it) there are two allegorical characters that the Bear is thinking of, Mr. By-Ends and one Mr. Worldly Wiseman. Mr. By-Ends sees religion as a means to an end, and does quite well for himself trimming his sails with changes in beliefs. One Mr. Worldly Wiseman keeps busy about his practical affairs and leads a well-ordered “religious” life quite subordinated to the world.
These gentlemen are in charge. Homosexuals first undermined the Church by their abusivness, and then were held out as the way for it to make its peace with a wicked generation. How sick is that?

Go here to read the rest.  The popularity of the Pope in the non-Catholic world rests on the assumption that he is a Leftist at heart and that he can be forgiven the odd pro-life statement now and again because he has promised not to harp on the favored sins of Leftists.  In this pontificate the Church has been neutered as a problem for the Left, when the Church is not actively supporting their positions, and that ensures him good press in venues that routinely called Pope Benedict a Nazi.

More to explorer

73 Comments

  1. ” In this pontificate the Church has been neutered as a problem for the left.”

    I would be more open and also including the right. That very large number of “conservatives” who shout, “Stay out of my bedroom” or, “Let’s deal with economics and taxes and leave the “social issues” out of this election until after we win.” come to mind.
    I refer to the latter as the Judas-wing of the GOP. the former, well, perhaps they are counting on the “pastoral virus” to save them.

  2. “The Bear wishes he could forget about homosexuals, but here’s the thing. The Bear doesn’t really care what 1-2% of the population does to achieve sexual release. They’re not driving this derangement. ”

    This is what boggles my mind; the Irish vote, the money poured into the campaign, the media coverage all for the roughly 92,000 Irish sodomites (2% of 4.6 million). Most of them don’t truly have an interest in marriage-just like the rest of secular society.

  3. The Vatican issued a statement saying it was a defeat for humanity.

    You forgot to mention that part.

    But other than that, they have remained awfully quiet. They are too busy being loved by the world. And besides, our new Pope is against rules anyway, so who is he to judge?

  4. Gersobyn, yest that was Parolin. But still not a word from the Vicar of Christ regarding the apostasy of one of the Church’s greatest nations. At least Pope Benedict issued a warning to Ireland and visited the country of what was once “saints and scholars”. What is Pope Francis afraid of? The degenerates?

  5. Yes, Card Parolin’s virtually pro forma, defeatist statement after the Irish vote was reminiscent of Goering’s Luftwaffe flying two FW-190 fighters over the Normandy beaches on D-Day: When the wing commander of the pitiable effort landed, he allegedly said to his confrere(verbatim), “Well, that is the presence of the fabled Luftwaffe over the landings.”

    The Bergoglio-Vatican effort, of course in another defeat, was beyond appalling for a papacy that has redefined the term. “Well, that is the presence of the fabled Vatican in our world today.”

  6. @William P. Walsh: The Irish ought to keep a wary eye on the sea.
    Too late, the sea [of evil, worse than paganism] has swamped them.
    *
    The cardinal, in his strongly worded statement, added: “I believe that we are talking here not just about a defeat for Christian principles, but also about a defeat for humanity.”
    *
    Humanity? No reference to God or to the eternal salvation of souls?
    *
    Contrast with:

    Ireland has gone further than paganism and “defied God” by legalising gay marriage, one of the Church’s most senior cardinals has said.
    Cardinal Raymond Burke, who was recently moved from a senior role in the Vatican to be patron of the Order of Malta, told the Newman Society, Oxford University’s Catholic Society, last night that he struggled to understand “any nation redefining marriage”.
    Visibly moved, he went on: “I mean, this is a defiance of God. It’s just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage.” – Cardinal Raymond Burke, http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/2108/0/ireland-is-worse-than-the-pagans-for-legalising-gay-marriage-says-senior-cardinal

  7. I admit I have no problem with the silence. The truth is I have always seen the same sex marriage debate as two questions…can the Church allow it, and should the State allow it. One can honestly hold the view that the Catholic Church can never change but that it’s a nice thing for the State to allow. If I discovered I had attractions to people of my own sex, I would not act on them, even remaining single forever if I had to. But, I say “sure” to nations leglizing it. Along with other things it helps us provide homes for kids fro broken families, and frankly just sounds like a nice gesture.

    I don’t buy that it somehow damages kids. You kind of go through a moment where you wish you had a mom and a dad? Kids with a parent dead or divorced parents do that. And while I don’t want the Church to change its views on divorce, I will say that even if kids are sad in all 3 circumstances above, they get over it.

  8. “One can honestly hold the view that the Catholic Church can never change but that it’s a nice thing for the State to allow.”

    Which suddenly we discover for the first time in recorded history. The idea that this will all stop with a few sexually confused people getting hitched by bored magistrates and that the Church can go merrily on her way, could only be said by someone who hasn’t been paying attention to the goals of the gay activists which is clearly for all institutions to be forced to give complete approval to what the Church has always regarded as a mortal sin.

  9. I’m fully confident that we will never get to a point where the State is appointing priests. Does this mean we will get to a day when the Church takes no money from the feds, something I think you have written about? Possibly. And being someone who passionatly believes in the iron Seperation of Church and State, to the point I think Britain’s system is frankly not good enough, that doesn’t seem like such an awful thing. I have heard of some locations going nuts and violating the Church’s freedoms, but I am confident that both the courts and popular outrage whenever we hear of these stories will ensure that priests are not going to have to fear for their lives for stating the Church can never change anytime soon.

  10. Frankly, if I were a priest, I would simply state on the subject…..”I’m sorry, but the Church cannot change on this topic”, while waging war against parents throwing their kids out, actual bullying, people getting fired fromantic secular jobs for being LGBT, and would honestly tell parents to just suck it up and go to a same sex wedding their kids had with their partners, and if it’s in a church….just don’t take communion.

  11. “I’m fully confident that we will never get to a point where the State is appointing priests.”

    Precisely the same thing was said some thirty years ago in regard to gay marriage. The gay activists are at war with anything that stands in their way of the complete social acceptance of gay sex and the Catholic Church is most certainly in that category. Pressure on the Church will continually ratchet up until the gay activists are defeated, religious freedom ends or a Muslim takeover of a completely decadent West.

  12. “and would honestly tell parents to just suck it up and go to a same sex wedding their kids had with their partners, and if it’s in a church….just don’t take communion.”

    In other words pretend that a child enmeshed in mortal sin, and risking Hell, is not in such jeopardy. As a father I regard such advice as completely mistaken.

  13. “We have the 1st amendment”

    A legal system that can read a right to abortion into a Constitution that says zip about abortion can do wonders to the text of any portion of the Constitution.

  14. The first amendment is pretty explicit on religious freedom.

    Regarding what I would say as a priest…..it’s also a matter of tactics. I wouldn’t disown my kid for leaving catholicism for instance. I believe ours is the one true chuech, but Im likely to drive them away from the Church if I try and force it.

    Its like with sex….the tactic I would adopt with my teen kids would be forbid it till the age of consent in whatever state we were living in, and once they hit that point……what they did outside the house was their business but they are forbidden from having president martial sex in my house. Not because I approve of premarital sex…..which I dont……but as a tactic.

  15. When we receive the Sacrament of Penance, it is a private affair. Matrimony is a public affair and those who attend demonstrate their approval and affirmation of the union of the betrothed. I can neither approve nor affirm a decision contrary to the will of God so I would not attend. May I quote a part of Father Rutler’s column for this Sunday?

    ” The landslide vote in Eire for legalizing the fictitious form of marriage between persons of the same sex, in contradiction of all laws natural and divine, unearths the pulsating Druidism that Saint Patrick and his fellow saints defied.”

  16. Like I said, not going could end up making your child bitter. It won’t neccesarily actually convince them of anything, but to hate what they perceive the Roman Catholic Church as demanding. Sometimes, the best form of witness is to just say nothing. Besides, if your child converted to another faith, or became an athiest and married in a courthouse, would you not attend?

  17. To a certain degree, the fate of your child’s soul is in God’s hands and there is nothing you can do but follow God’s commands in your own life.

  18. J.S. Person, you ask, “Besides, if your child converted to another faith, or became an athiest and married in a courthouse, would you not attend?” I answer, these are situations which fall under a requirement for kind interpretation and assumption of another’s honesty, that they are acting sincerely according to the light they have, even if in error. Calling sodomy marriage is entirely another thing. Another matter for my consideration is being a lector in our parish places a greater burden upon me than falls on a more anonymous occupant of the pews, not that I am better than anyone but more visible. Woe to them through whom scandals come.

  19. “To a certain degree, the fate of your child’s soul is in God’s hands and there is nothing you can do but follow God’s commands in your own life.”

    The child’s soul is in his or her hands as to the soul’s ultimate destination, and it is a parent’s duty to point out when a child is engaging in conduct that is harmful to his or her soul, just the same as if the child is engaging in conduct harmful to the body. The child may not listen, at least immediately, but the love that a parent has for a child requires that the attempt be made.

  20. I have friends who are not Catholic, and who believe premarital sex is ok. Am I bound to tell them not too? Or in that case, is it better to just say nothing to encourage them, but not to verbally harp on them to stop? Because in that case, I would argue it’s better to just say nothing.

  21. J.S Person: “I don’t see the difference between the two.” The difference is that while Catholics, Protestants, Jews and atheists are capable of entering into marriage, persons of the same sex are not.

  22. “I have friends who are not Catholic, and who believe premarital sex is ok.”

    Friends are not children, the same duty would not exist. However, if they are friends that you care deeply about, you might want to mention to them that sin is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.

  23. William: Why? I am not questioning the Catholic definition of marriage. But I am saying this….let us step into the mind of someone who is not Catholic. Let’s say they are either liberal theologically, whether Protestant or otherwise, don’t believe, or are simoly a passionate beliver in separation of church and state. They might argue….yes the definition of marriage throughout European history, and for those around the world who could not afford poligamy, might have always been one man one woman. But why not change it if we want to? The person liberal theologically might just say it’s just something like all those other rules of the old testament we don’t live by any more. And frankly, I dont see how you can’t argue that not being in the right faith is somehow less rebelious. You could just as easily argue that someone raised on a more Liberal theological approach to all the bible might be “innocent”. Or at least no more “guilty” in today’s world than someone who belongs to a different religion or Christian denomination.

  24. Donald: The thing is, I am a passionate beliver in freedom of religion and Separation of Church and State. I am not implying others arent, but I am stating I intend to make sure I extend that freedom to how my wife and I raise any children we someday have.

  25. “Donald: The thing is, I am a passionate beliver in freedom of religion and Separation of Church and State.”

    Freedom of religion has never meant freedom to sin as the Mormons found out in the 19th Century. Individuals, groups and states may call sin not-sin, but the reality remains.

  26. And yet, neither of us would support making it illegal to have premarital sex, or to have a long term partner of the same sex…..right?

    The point is, sometimes people must be left to make their own mistakes, and maybe to get away with them in this life, with their fates ultimatly decided by God when they die. And as far as the state providing benefits to couples in arrangemeets our Church cannot consider ok…..for me, I have always seen the State as an alliance of sorts between various factions, with the national government as mediator and peace keeper. So it can do things religions cant in the name of peace, freedom, prosperity. Obviously I would NEVER support legalizing human sacrifice. But same sex marriage doesn’t involve killing, or even hurting anyone.

  27. To quote (or possibly paraphrase, I hope the wording is close to exact) Charles Krauthammer, “I am not going to any barricades” to stop this.

  28. “And yet, neither of us would support making it illegal to have premarital sex, or to have a long term partner of the same sex…..right?”

    Both were illegal until the day before yesterday in historical terms. That didn’t begin to change until the misbegotten sixties of the last century. The usual argument against such laws is a diffuse “right to privacy” which can be used to protect virtually any conduct. Legislators and judges have applied such an argument to sex, but strangely do not apply it to holding gold, owning firearms, and a whole host of areas of private conduct heavily regulated by the State. The simple truth is that sexual libertinism was not regarded as having anything to do with freedom outside of cranks, until post World War II. It is the product of wealth and decadence in the West, and decadent societies usually embrace sexual deviations on their way down.

  29. It was a mistake for the above mentioned to be illegal. Yes the prohibitions might have had long histories…but so have a lot of practices it was good to be rid off. The barricades comment? I ABSOLUTELY would go to them to stop those things from being made illegal.

    Whether with booze, drugs, or sex in situations between consenting adults that our Church has and will always say is wrong……I generally take the line that you shouldn’t criminalize non violent sin. Let the Church leaders shame it, but secular society should stay out of it. Besides, to get involved is a waste of the government’s time, resources, and money.

  30. “It was a mistake for the above mentioned to be illegal. Yes the prohibitions might have had long histories”

    Did have very long histories, as long as recorded history. Societies are always going to regulate sexual conduct and I find it amusing that those trying to regulate sexual conduct the most these days are those on the deranged left. The regulations they propose are absurd, but they are correct that the lack of regulation in this area currently will not endure.

    “I generally take the line that you shouldn’t criminalize non violent sin.”

    Then you oppose laws against forgery? Bigamy? Public drunkenness? Public urination? There are endless laws which criminalize non-violent sin, libertarian fantasies notwithstanding, and such laws will always be part of any human polity.

  31. I said genreally. Perhaps I should rephrase…..non violent sin that does not hurt people. Forgery is stealing. Other stuff has various justifications. But how exactly is consensual sex between adults in their own homes hurting anyone? Getting married brings practical benifits, and certainly creates environments that can help with kids from broken homes (see earlier comments about kids getting over not having a married mom and dad), so it’s no skin off society’s nose as long as he faith communities are left alone.

  32. I should also point out I oppose insest, and don’t want that legalized anytime soon. In fact, in my view, the wisest thing many conservative groups could do now would be to unite in proposing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between two people who not are not immediate family. A one man one wo an amendment would never pass, but there is enough unity right now on insest being bad and keeping marriage between two people that I bet you could get such an amendment passed, drawing the line.

  33. J.S. Person et al: In the recent past, various acts were illegal, including adultery, sodomy and fornication. These were deemed to be harmful to society, and indeed they are. These acts are now “legal” but still harmful to society. Will we soon see bestiality, pederasty and rape added to the list? This speculation aside, no one here is proposing that homosexual activity be again made a crime. What we object to is the elevation of it to an act approved, benefited, encouraged, lauded, licensed, praised, regulated and sanctioned by the state. The next step would be to force participation by the churches and synagogues. While we debate the matter as an issue of faith and morals particular to our faith, do not lose sight of the diabolical conspiracy aimed at the destruction of all faith.

  34. “But how exactly is consensual sex between adults in their own homes hurting anyone?”

    I do wish you could sit in on some of my paternity cases. People playing house rarely consider the kids they may bring into the world. Then we have the kids growing up frequently with no fathers. Fornication is one of the more harmful sins in practical terms in my opinion.

  35. JS Person- all this discussion is not theoretical for me, as I am the parent in the situations you have described.
    I did not go to the wedding, Most of our extended family and some of our children did. I continue to pray that our son and his partner will both repent and come back to God and the Church. We are in close contact, sadly maybe (probably) a lot because of our family business. I like to hope that if we did not work together he would still stay close, despite the huge dragon always in the living room.
    I want to tell you that the situation is not one that only harms the participants in the gay union .. young nephews, brothers and sisters are hurt to name a few. The youngest are already getting the messages from the world that their parents and grandparents are just living in the hateful past and are to be tolerated, because they (we) can’t help it- being Catholic.
    …The dragon has a razor sharp tail. Our belief that our son and brother has cut himself off from his relationship with the Lord, bringing eternal suffering upon himself, is painful constantly. Our son studied at the very pontifical university where this last week a so-called “secret” meeting was held, hosted by the German Cardinal Marx. So my own struggle with anger at some churchmen and silly nuns grows. The rest of the family and his dad and I struggle with what-in-the-world influenced him when he lived and studied in Rome.
    As you may know the famous “sex scandals” in the Church are better labeled “homosex scandals”.
    In our family, we all struggle with hurt and anger and confusion.
    .
    As for your contention that being reared in single sex homes doesn’t hurt the children- you should read “Jeptha’s Daughters” and other books and essays by kids who have been there and done that. I dread the day that might happen in our family and struggle to begin to think how we can deal with that next slide down without losing our grip on hope.

  36. Anzlyne: what you said about what the youngsters are being taught….that proves my point from above. Not going did nothing. Frankly, I argue the solution I proposed above when talking about the advice I’d give if I were a priest, and how’d I react as a father, would have been more effective.

  37. “Not going did nothing.”

    Oh yes it did. It told him that his parents actually believe the Faith in which they raised him, the Faith which, hopefully, he will one day return to. Bravo, Anzlyne! What you did was hard but necessary for your son.

  38. And to the above listed studies…..I would 1st point out that the APA said everything was fine, the heritage one doesn’t prove there is a problem, simply thought the studies could have been done better, the Austin study was heavily criticized…..and frankly, I have my doubts about what a few, scattered studies may say…..especially from sources with an agenda. That the overwhelming scientific consensus rejects a few studies they have looked and and found flawed tells me more.

    Take the one CBS reported…..which mostly showed disfunctional homes are bad period. And whose to say some of the problems are not the result popular prejudice?

  39. Donald: As opposed to going but, if it was in a church, not taking the eucharist? I suspect it did more heart hardening, frankly.

  40. Also Donald, one could try and argue it wound be “neccesary” if a child raised Catholic became an athiest, heritic, or converted to another religion

  41. “I suspect it did more heart hardening, frankly.”

    As opposed to pretending that everything is fine and wonderful? Gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with social acceptance of gay sex as good. Forcing relatives to participate in such appalling perversions of a Christian ceremony is all part of the strategy.

  42. @Anzlyne: God bless you and yours! What testimony, which reminds me of noble Eleazar and his martyrdom [cf. 2 Macc 6:18-31 (RSVCE)]:

    […] When he had said this, he went at once to the rack. 29 And those who a little before had acted toward him with good will now changed to ill will, because the words he had uttered were in their opinion sheer madness. 30 When he was about to die under the blows, he groaned aloud and said: “It is clear to the LORD in his holy knowledge that, though I might have been saved from death, I am enduring terrible sufferings in my body under this beating, but in my soul I am glad to suffer these things because I fear him.” […]

    The LORD knows in his holy knowledge what you and your family suffer for his revered and holy laws and perhaps through them he will bring your son to his senses when he realises who it is that really and truly loves him.

  43. I have a great idea. How about when our children are about to marry into a sinful situation, we bring the rest of the Catholic family to the church, dressed for the wedding and we all kneel down outside the wedding door and pray continuously during the ceremony for the salvation of their souls, obviously, in public, and when the service is over, we go the reception. Tell me what is wrong with that?

  44. @J.S Person: But how exactly is consensual sex between adults in their own homes hurting anyone?
    *
    In this day and age, it is becoming increasingly difficult to make and have a sane argument … the level of delusion and confusion is amazing.
    *
    If those two people are not truly married to each other, let’s start with them hurting each other, their current or future families, and their current or future spouses and their families, and friends, etc. If baptized Christians, the damage reverberates throughout the Mystical body of Christ and from the teaching of Pope St. John Paul II, the human family is dragged down as well.

    To speak of social sin means in the first place to recognize that, by virtue of human solidarity which is as mysterious and intangible as it is real and concrete, each individual’s sin in some way affects others. This is the other aspect of that solidarity which on the religious level is developed in the profound and magnificent mystery of the communion of saints, thanks to which it has been possible to say that “every soul that rises above itself, raises up the world.” To this law of ascent there unfortunately corresponds the law of descent. Consequently one can speak of a communion of sin, whereby a soul that lowers itself through sin drags down with itself the church and, in some way, the whole world. In other words, there is no sin, not even the most intimate and secret one, the most strictly individual one, that exclusively concerns the person committing it. With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and the whole human family. According to this first meaning of the term, every sin can undoubtedly be considered as social sin. – John Paul II > Apostolic Exhortations > Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (December 2, 1984)

  45. “I would 1st point out that the APA said everything was fine, the heritage one doesn’t prove there is a problem, simply thought the studies could have been done better…”

    No, the APA conclusion that everything is fine was based on studies that, as the Heritage report notes, were flawed on multiple levels including not having a control group and only using self reports. Thus, the APA did not have any definitive scientific reasons to reach its conclusions.

    “the Austin study was heavily criticized…..”

    The criticisms were about limitations that the author addressed in his own study. Review by several boards including the journal that published the article found the science was sound and did not withdraw its publication. Unlike this blatant lie pulled by Science:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3090452/Study-gay-marriage-opinions-retracted-graduate-assistant-faked-data.html

    “…and frankly, I have my doubts about what a few, scattered studies may say…..especially from sources with an agenda.”

    An ad hominem argument. If the data is invalid, then address it and not the sources. But you can’t. Though, using your same logic, studies that back gay parenting frequently have suspect sources.

    “That the overwhelming scientific consensus rejects a few studies they have looked and and found flawed tells me more.”

    Except the scientific consensus is based upon seriously flawed studies as the Heritage report notes. A lot of bad data doesn’t make the data better.

  46. Man is homo sapiens, one species. To include those souls who choose to go to hell is to violate their free will. God never contradicts Himself.

  47. I am a passionate beliver in freedom of religion and Separation of Church and State. I am not implying others arent, but I am stating I intend to make sure I extend that freedom to how my wife and I raise any children we someday have.

    Hugo Black’s “Wall of Seperation” was intended by him to curtail access to the mainstream of American society to Catholics.

  48. That…is pretty bloody horryfying. However, an idea can still be good, even if born by bad people and at least initially in less than ideal circumstances.

    There is a purity of separation of faith and state. Purity in the idea of the various faiths having to wage “war” against each other for dominance without the aid of the government, but with prayer, writings, speeches, community outreach. The mingling breads the corruption of both. It can prove a danger for freedom of speech, and breed cynicism in the people towards the faith deemed too cushy with the government.

    That seperation is just one thing the USA is far superior at than Europe (though even here, there is room for improvement). France goes a bit too far with it. A general attitude of letting everyone compete and be free to compete is best.

  49. True freedom of religion? The Government appoints no clergy. It suppresses no faith group (unless they promote some thing like human sacrifice, or otherwise engage in direct physical violence). Its constitution says nothing about the divine other than “freedom of religion” and “Separation of Church and state”. If a politician is religious and talks about it, great. If not, he or she is not obligated to defend it.

    I support the usa’s tax exempt status system….while also being ambivalent about state-church cooperation on various community development projects where money is theoretically available to multiple groups in some form.

    I think the French go too far with thier problems with religious symbol dispays, and view for instsnce having a problem with a woman who is Muslim voluntarily wearing the head coverings as unneccesary.

    But concordats? No support for those! No State (with the exception of Vatican City) should expressly declare itself for one faith or another. I suppose it’s tolerable for a State to go Britain’s route (if freedom promotion requires just compromising and accepting it) but personally, I view even the British arrangement as impure.

  50. * minor correction….for politicians, I meant to say not obligated to have one, or to fake having one

  51. @J.S Person: Thank you! Like I said, “in this day and age, it is becoming increasingly difficult to make and have a sane argument.
    *
    There is Good & Truth (=God). The state’s role ought to be to ensure as far as possible the common good – a word hardly in our conversation nowadays – of the society [cf. CCC 1898]. The best and successful society will be the one whose common good aligns with and is subordinate to, and follows the Good & Truth (=God).
    It follows then that the wisestate will not be indifferent to religion or no-religion [cf. the US Bill of Rights], but will seek to seek to uphold and promote
    true religion and discourage any and all forms of false religion [and yes no religion is a false religion, another lie from the father of lies].
    *
    Cf. on my blog The United States of America flawed from its inception. To me current “separation of Church and State” is fundamentally flawed and stems from the error of the Enlightenment.

  52. FMShyanguya:

    What would your response be to each of these specific point:

    1. Theocracy breads corruption, both of clergy who became compromised in their ability to speak truth to power, and of state officials.
    2. Its somewhat hypocritical to be outraged when other faiths persecute you, and then persecute them
    3. Freedom of religon, and Seperation of faith and the state, can bread peace between people of different faiths, who otherwise would fear the other so much they would (and are, in so many parts of the world) fighting for their lives.
    4. Freedom of religon does not mean a moral right to error, but might more accurately be read…..Freedom from the state forcing religon on you at the point of the gun?
    5.there is something that seems…pure, poetic, and fitting…..to have “wars” between faiths without violence, where their maybe no consequences for choosing ge wrong faith in this world, but the consequences cone in the next life.

  53. Finally….arguing that we Catholics would take away their freedom to worship…..that idea was used by people to oppress us Catholics in America’s past. So embracing “freedom from the government compelling you to a particular religion” and “the government and the constituion shall not declare for one faith or anohter” has a practical , survival value for us.

  54. There is a purity of separation of faith and state. Purity in the idea of the various faiths having to wage “war” against each other for dominance without the aid of the government, but with prayer, writings, speeches, community outreach. The mingling breads the corruption of both. It can prove a danger for freedom of speech, and breed cynicism in the people towards the faith deemed too cushy with the government.

    All that competition might be deemed well and good for the state, and it might even be deemed good for religion, institutionally speaking, but is it good for faith itself?

    The religious wars of the sixteenth century preceeded the age of nlightenment, after all.

  55. Faith must be allowed to grow, fade, and grow again without the state’s help. The people must in the end, decide whether to follow God or not. One can argue a society where most of the members lack faith is not a good thing, but it’s not the place of the state to mandate people attend this or that religious service, or they cannot build a house of worship for their group (even if we would consider it a bad faith) and certainly not the place of the state to mandate religious tests for government jobs, nor to arrest or fine those who preach their faith, no matter what we Catholics might think of said faith.

  56. @J.S Person: You are Catholic? Good then we are having this discussion. Summary answer: Do I think there will ever be a perfect human state? No I do not think so and that’s why Jews wait for the Messiah and scripture prophesy of a stone cut out by no human hand which smites the image on its feet of iron and clay, and breaks them in pieces [which] are [then] carried away by the wind so that not a trace of them cannot be found. But the stone that struck the image becomes a great mountain and filled the whole earth. [Cf. Dn 2:34-35 (RSVCE)].
    *
    PS […] but it’s not the place of the state to mandate people attend this or that religious service, or they cannot build a house of worship for their group (even if we would consider it a bad faith) and certainly not the place of the state to mandate religious tests for government jobs, nor to arrest or fine those who preach their faith. I am not advocating for this at all. Man is free, created so by God, who prefers [and calls us to be] sons rather than slaves. A state, for that matter a good and just leader, – words again we fail to hear these days – the wise one, is the one who knows how to promote good [among them the true and right religion cf. King Cyrus] and limit/suppress evil, without compulsion upon those ruled.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: