![](http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/deaconsbench/files/2012/12/2012-06-13T234951Z_01_ATL12_RTRIDSP_3_USA-409.jpg)
Michael
Voris put words to my concerns very nicely in the June 2 Vortex episode, which
is embedded below, with its full script. To whet your appetite, here’s MV’s opening
statement (my emphases):
The topic of religious liberty
is all the rage in some Catholic circles these days. And too many Catholics,
we’re afraid, are using this legally
annunciated principle and a defense for
theological teachings. That’s a
loser before you even get out of the gates.
Think about it. What is
religious liberty when applied to a society? It is, at its core, the view that
all religions have a right to be followed and not interfered with by the government.
Pretty noble sounding until you break it down. There are certain assumptions hidden in this understanding – the first being
that all religions are WORTHY of being followed and have a RIGHT to preach their
beliefs in the public square – whether
they are truthful or not.
This brings all religions onto
more or less the same equal level in terms of the state’s relationship to them.
But this approach is not being followed out to its logical conclusion. Religious
liberty is a phony liberty because it
will eventually imprison all moral views except the majority view.
I’ve
written about religious freedom elsewhere on this blog. In January 2012 (“Freedom?
Conscience? Truth!”), I wrote
![]() |
Caesar wants his pinch of incense |
When we make it all about
freedom of religion, though, we open another can of worms…not that
the can isn’t already open. We open the door to all kinds of “religions” whose
adherents then demand certain rights and recognitions – like homosexual
“marriage” and the “right” not to have to view a Nativity scene on public
property during the Christmas season and the right to abortion and
contraception. Again, Dignitatis Humanae does address this
problem by calling for religious freedom “within due limits”, and “as
long as the just requirements of public order are observed”. But it’s
pretty clear that these limits have gone by the wayside in our society; they
are not being observed.
I don’t
think these things up all by myself…I’m not that smart. I read what other
people write, and think about it, and try to put it all together so it makes some
sense to my own little mind; then I share it with you. In another January 2012 post
(“War
on Conscience or War on Truth?”), I quoted Dr. Christian Brugger, who wrote
in a Culture
of Life Foundation article (my emphases):
“Yes, there is a lot of anger
over Obama's radically illiberal policy. But that anger is only rightly felt if
it concerns the violation, not of legal or even constitutional rights,
but the violation of truth. We need to stand up and say confidently and
resolutely to Kathleen Sebelius, her thugs at HHS and her puppet-master in the
White House: Your view is false and untrue; it radically violates
human good and is destructive of communal integrity.”
You see,
when we hang onto this whole “religious freedom” notion, we stop preaching the
Truth. We are only saying that we are entitled to believe what we believe, and
act accordingly. But “religious freedom” means, essentially, that adherents of every
other “religion” are entitled to believe what they believe…and act accordingly.
Somewhere along the line, there will inevitably be conflicts about “acting
accordingly”, because there are conflicts between religions.
There can
be only one Truth, but the idea of religious freedom denies that fact. As Michael Voris says in the Vortex episode
below:
So if Catholics and Muslims and
Hindus each have their own set of truths, which contradict each other – which
they do – then the very concept of truth itself cannot be appealed to in any
circumstance.
Precisely because of the
foundational principles underlying the political dogma of religious liberty,
then ultimately, objective truth MUST be
denied. If all “truths” have a place at the table, then no one of them is
superior.
Fighting
for “religious freedom” then, is not going to help the Church. What is needed
is a fight for the Truth. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI told the US bishops at
their ad limina visit in 2012 (my emphases):
…[The Church has a critical
role to play in countering cultural currents which, on the basis of an extreme
individualism, seek to promote notions
of freedom detached from moral truth. Our tradition does not speak from
blind faith, but from a rational perspective which links our commitment to
building an authentically just, humane and prosperous society to our ultimate
assurance that the cosmos is possessed of an inner logic accessible to human
reasoning.
Benedict XVI went on to address the notion of “religious freedom”, but noted the concern about
… a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of
worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.
That’s
right. And as MV notes with regard to the history of the Pantheon in Rome:
All the gods are just as
acceptable as all the other gods… so multiple statutes to various gods stood in
this temple. So come worship whatever god you wanted. And that’s exactly what
people did. Ah, but there was some fine
print. You could worship whatever god or gods you desired, so long as you ALSO bowed down before the god of Rome
and offered a pinch of incense to
Caesar.
And if
we continue to fight for “religious freedom”, we’ll get “freedom of worship”
instead; and if we settle for that, then we – the Church – ends up offering
incense to Caesar.
What is
the solution? Well, MV and the Pope Emeritus agree on this point! Benedict XVI,
in that same ad limina address to the
US bishops said:
Here once more we see the need
for an engaged, articulate and
well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism
which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the
issues which are determining the future of American society.
I
really think that he was saying we need to stand up, not so much for “religious
freedom” as for the Truth.
Here’s
the Vortex from June 28:
The
script:
I’m
Michael Voris coming to you from Rome – specifically in front of the Pantheon,
a 1st century temple to all the gods of the Roman Empire. It’s a good place to
examine the things of the present and the future – this temple from the past.
The
topic of religious liberty is all the rage in some Catholic circles these days.
And too many Catholics, we’re afraid, are using this legally annunciated
principle and a defense
for
theological teachings. That’s a loser before you even get out of the gates.
Think
about it. What is religious liberty when applied to a society? It is, at its
core, the view that all religions have a right to be followed and not
interfered with by the government. Pretty noble sounding until you break it
down. There are certain assumption hidden in this understanding – the first
being that all religions are WORTHY of being followed and have a RIGHT to
preach their beliefs in the public square – whether they are truthful or not.
This
brings all religions onto more or less the same equal level in terms of the
state’s relationship to them. But this approach is not being followed out to
its logical conclusion.
Religious
liberty is a phony liberty because it will eventually imprison all moral views except
the majority view. Religion deals with the notion of truth. Yet various
religions automatically admits of various truths.
Catholics
and Muslims don’t accept the same truths – and the question of whether we worship
the same God or not, from an objective viewpoint, is beside the point. We don’t
ascribe the same truths to Him and that’s what’s important – and why it is extremely
disingenuous and gilding the lily to just blurt out we worship the same God, and
leave it at that. Talk about a confusing and misleading statement.
So if
Catholics and Muslims and Hindus each have their own set of truths, which contradict
each other – which they do – then the very concept of truth itself cannot be appealed
to in any circumstance.
Precisely
because of the foundational principles underlying the political dogma of religious
liberty, then ultimately, objective truth MUST be denied. If all “truths” have
a place at the table, then no one of them is superior. That was the whole point
of this temple – The Pantheon.
All the
gods are just as acceptable as all the other gods… so multiple statutes to
various gods stood in this temple. So come worship whatever god you wanted. And
that’s exactly what people did. Ah, but there was some fine print. You could worship
whatever god or gods you desired, so long as you ALSO bowed down before the god
of Rome and offered a pinch of incense to Caesar.
See,
the state always has an interest in religion, and will set itself up as
superior every chance it gets. The state – which ultimately means the majority –
is the one, after all, that defines religious liberty: what it is, how far it
can go, and so forth. No state will long make its appeal to reason, but to its
own self-interests for its own self-preservation. This is why the current
outcry about religious liberty is a foolish tactic. It is guaranteed to fail.
The
state is the arbiter of religious liberty by virtue of religious liberty. Majority
rules, and that’s that. The United States was erected on the Enlightenment
principles of individual liberties – religious liberty among them.
But
among those liberties is the right to self-determination. In the 1992 Supreme
Court ruling Casey Vs. Planned Parenthood,
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority
Opinion:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence,
of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Where
do you go with that? And when you
apply it to religions, it’s lights out – in particular [for] Catholicism. That
is a terribly anti-Catholic statement out of the mouth of a Catholic, no less.
At the
heart of liberty is not the “right” to define your own concept of anything –
but rather the “right” to freely embrace THE TRUTH.
The
problem here is that there is no recognition of objective truth, so how can
religious liberty be appealed to as though it were some moral absolute? It
isn’t. Religious liberty is what at least five US Supreme Court justices say it
is and nothing else. This is very much akin to the high court earlier this week
paving the way for same-sex marriage by striking down key elements of DOMA. It
is the logical conclusion of a view of self-determination.
And it
is EXACTLY what we predicted would happen – not that it took a prophet to see the
signs of THESE times…but it does take an idiot to ignore them.
Religious
liberty is a canard because the moment Catholic teaching or sensibilities come into
conflict with the larger society, the Church will lose, simply because it is
viewed as just one religion among many.
And if it
accepts the position of being just one of the statues in the pantheon of the
gods, which it has done in America for quite some time in many cases, then its
leaders will HAVE to offer some incense to the gods of Rome.
The
American Patriotic Church will go the way of all religions in America because
it has begged and pleaded for more than a century for a place at the table of
religious pluralism, and soon, it will discover, it’s about to get its deserts.
Religious
liberty – however noble it MAY sound – always devolves to the state crushing the
true religion underfoot.
Coming
to you from the temple of all the gods tolerated by the state, but where the
gods of the state reigned supreme, this is Michael Voris for ChurchMilitant.TV.
Archbishop Lefebvre recognized this as problematic too, along with Collegial Equality & Ecumenical Fraternity. Unfortunately, we are reaping the fruits now . . .
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/
The argument of Catholics and Muslims sharing the same truth is actually true ... the Philosophies of both religions are very similar (having a basis in Aristotle and Plato) God revealed himself to the Jewish People (the Israelite Nation) as the One True God of Abraham. All three (Christian, Muslim and Jewish) have this same origin, from their they split and that is because the Jews do not see Christ as the Messiah and the Muslims do not follow the line of Isaac. God revealed himself to the Jews as Christ but not all followed Christ therefore, He revealed himself to others, such as Muhammad to bring all people together. As, for the above mentioned Hindus God also revealed himself in the form of a human to them but they, since having many God's some converted to Muslim or Christian or did not convert at all. Therefore there is on True God who wants us to follow is laws of Truth, the problem is it is held in the perception of the "faith"
ReplyDeleteAs for Religious Freedom if we would come together and follow the same philosophies of right and wrong and finding the truth the answers are there and through that the world would strive and not have to worry about "religious freedom" because as it is written in many faith traditions to be free just causes us to be deeper in slavery to worldly goods, in other words we need rules and regulations to be productive and have the spiritual life God has provided for us
Not completely sure what you are trying to imply here, Anonymous, but it appears that you are saying that, since there is, in fact, only one god, then any religion that claims to worship only one god must be worshipping the same god because there really aren't any other gods to worship. If that is what you are saying, I'm not sure it says anything that will bring people together because this one god seems to have said different things to different people, leaving no common ground of Truth capable of bringing people together. This would suggest that God lies to a lot of people who take the contradictory statements of different religions as true when, given the principle of noncontradiction, that isn't possible.
ReplyDeleteAppealing to "we all worship the same god" is fine if that god is saying the same things to everyone. To suggest that Islam is God's "Plan B" after not all accepted Jesus Christ is not very insightful given that "Plan B" differs from "Plan A" in significant ways, such as the belief that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate who said, quite clearly, that He is the ONLY way to the Father. If Jesus said that (and He did) then "Plan B" makes Jesus Christ a liar because Islam is presented as "another way" revealed by God to accommodate those who didn't accept "Plan A." Since "Plan B" is not the same as "Plan A," then God Himself becomes a liar.
Finally, your "if we would come together and follow the same philosophies of right and wrong and finding the truth the answers are there" isn't possible given the contradictions between various faith traditions. The "same philosophies of right and wrong" don't exist across different faith traditions. Their divine revelation is contradictory.
Your desire for peace and harmony through embrace of what all religions have in common reduces to a "least common denominator" faith that is really little more than "Religion for Dummies." It's not an insignificant detail to believe and claim that the founder of one's religion is God Incarnate. That really makes all religions that claim otherwise fundamentally false. They may overlap in "philosophies of right and wrong," but where they differ makes all the difference. Jesus Christ is THE Way.
I think it's rather like the blind men and the elephant. No one religion can see God entirely, we all see just bits and pieces. As a Catholic, I naturally believe that where other religions contradict Catholicism, Catholicism is right.
DeleteBrother Juniper, the Truth of the faith is the Truth whether or not one is Catholic. As a NON-Catholic, I saw that Truth (by the grace of God), and became Catholic.
DeleteIt's as I've said at my blog, religious liberty can only be a means to an end, it can't be an end in of itself, and that is one of the huge problems with the fortnight for freedom (which I'm not participating in) when one proceeds do the things they're already proclaiming as evil (providing contraception and abortion in Cardinal Dolan's diocese for example)
ReplyDeleteAnother problem one can see from time-to-time in these type of endeavors is the tired idiom: "As Catholics we believe..."
ReplyDeleteOr the silly, insipid statement one may hear in CCD or RCIA circles, "The Catholic Church does not have a corner on truth in the world."
Those two statements can lead one to religious indifferentism.
As Dr. Boyd has said time and again here; "The Truth is the Truth." Amen!
While we can celebrate the truths in other Chrisitan traditions or other religions - they are *Catholic Truths*!
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose *power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church*. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,and are in themselves calls to *"Catholic unity."* (CCC 819, stars added)
Catechist Kev