Nice Thoughts

"Our Lord was crucified by the nice people who held that religion was all right in its place, so long as its place was not here, where it might demand of them a change of heart. The gravest error of the nice people in all ages is the denial of sin."

"Those who were aligned against Him were the nice people who stood high in the community---the worldly, prosperous people, the men of big business, the judges of law courts who governed by expediency, the “civic-minded” individuals whose true selfishness was veneered over with public generosity. Such men as these opposed Him and sent Him to His death."

- Fulton J. Sheen, Peace of Soul

Religious Toleration

The topic of "Religious Liberty" is sprinkled about through various forms of media and discussions in recent months. Unfortunately language used in reference to the topic is often "nuanced", and discussion is unclear.

God created man for a purpose, namely to "know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven." To this end, sin plays no part. God did not create man to sin. Certainly God gave man free will. With our will we can choose good or what we perceive to be a "good"; so it is possible for us (albeit insane) to choose sin over God. Thus the materialists twist freedom into a matter of choosing whatever one desires. In reality, choosing God and fulfilling our purpose is to choose freedom. Choosing sin on the other hand is an abuse of freedom.

Man's God given rights, the "natural rights", are those that assist man with his created purpose. Sin plays no role in assisting man towards his goal. While man is capable of sin, it is never his right to sin.

Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, "De malo", 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Romans 14:23).

If by "religious liberty" it is meant that man cannot be coerced into religious belief against his conscience by the state, or if it is meant the right of man to hold the Catholic faith, then we can concur with this. The latter is not contradictory as we know that the Catholic Church serves to bring us to God, and thus participating in the Faith is in union with our natural rights. The former is known as religious toleration with an emphasis on the true meaning of the word "tolerance".

If by "religious liberty" it is meant as a right of man to choose any religion, dogma, belief, etc., that is contrary to God, then it should be obvious that man has no such right. Often the phrase "Religious Liberty" is used when what is intended is "freedom (meaning right) to worship how we choose (including that which is contrary to God)." This might be a "right" granted by the state, but it is no true natural right any more than something like abortion is a right.

...no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its reaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion...

- Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei (references: 1, 2, 3)

I believe it necessary for one to have a strong grasp on "religious toleration" before one can properly understand the Church on what some call "religious liberty". The Catholic Encyclopedia has a very extensive article on the topic of "Religious Toleration" that deserves study.

Atheists Know More About Religion

At least that's what a new study from the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life says.

To a certain degree this makes sense. St. Thomas teaches that we can know of the existence of God simply by natural reason. Given that God is knowable with the human intellect unaided by Grace, it stands to reason that the anti-faith of an atheist would mean being able to explain away the positions held by theists, which means knowing about what various religions say about themselves.

Then again, this study is really pointless. The larger trend seems to be that the prevailing religion these days is non-religion, not anti-religion: more people don't know and don't care about religion to even bother with the effort of being atheist. And it's a lot harder to convince someone who doesn't care about the Truth to accept it that it is to convert one's misconception of it.

Belgian Priest: End mandatory celibacy

The Wall Street Journal is running a short piece and poll on whether the Roman Catholic Church should drop mandatory celibacy as a priestly requirement. They even have a couple of deserting Belgian priests to shill for their position (something about married men should be allowed to become priests).

The issue here isn't celibacy but spiritual contraception. For the better part of fifty years there has been an absence of solid doctrine and sound teaching coming from the bishops of the Church. And in this era of "anything goes" what has "gone" the most is vocations: a tiny fraction of what they were two generations ago.

A big reason for this is that the concept of sacrifice has been removed from the concept of what the priest does. By offering the Sacrifice of Calvary and conforming his life to Jesus crucified, the priest becomes little more than a social worker or community leader, searching for meaning in his life.

If the role and purpose of the priest were better understood by young Catholic men then more of them would enter seminary to become priests themselves. But because that message has not been delivered, much hand-wringing and calls to abandon clerical disciplines that date back to the time of the Apostles is what results.

Water down the concept of the priesthood and you get watered-down priests. Renew the concept of the manliness of the priestly function and more than a few good men will step forward to answer the call.

Climate Change is a Religion. Officially.

In a landmark ruling, English Justice Mr Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations". Read the full story here.

I applaud the progressiveness of the British Judiciary. I fully expect, on my next trip to England, to be recognized and embraced for new religion, one that is marked by my genuinely held philosophical belief that Justice Mr. Michael Burton is a blithering idiot and a threat to England and all of civilized people.