The Devil knows Scripture...

For it is written, that He hath given his angels charge over thee, that they keep thee. And that in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. And Jesus answering, said to him: It is said: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Luke 4:10-12)

We have the devil here again citing Scripture, (Ps. xc. v. 11.) [Read what is given on this subject in note on v. 6, c. iv. of S. Matthew's gospel (reproduced in the next quote section)] which shews how very dangerous a thing it is to put the Scripture, in the first instance, indiscriminately into every, even the most illiterate person's hands, without any previous disposition of the mind and heart, by study and prayer. How much more satisfactory must it be to be guided by the Church of God, which Christ has promised to secure against all error, and which he commands all to obey! How much more rational to begin with distributing elementary catechisms, approved by the Catholic Church as conformable to the word of God, and then only opening to them the sacred mystic book, when their minds and hearts are better prepared to avail themselves of the inestimable treasure, and of justly appreciating and exploring the golden lore. If humility be a virtue that renders us most pleasing to God, it is a virtue particularly necessary for the proper understanding of Holy Writ. This will teach us to submit (whenever the Scripture is either silent or obscure in points of faith) our own private and unassisted judgment to the judgment and comments of the Church. This was the sentiment of a great philosopher of this nation, who, when charged with scepticism and a love of novelty by his contemporaries, replied: "However fanciful I may be esteemed in matters of philosophy, in religious concerns I like to go the beaten road. Where the Scripture is silent, the Church is my text. Where that speaks, it is but the comment; and I never refer any thing to the arbitration of my own judgment, but in the silence of them both." (Haydock Commentary Luke 4:10)

Heretics, says S. Augustine, quote Scriptures, as the devil does here, in a wrong and forced sense; the Church cites them, like Jesus Christ, in their true sense, and to confute their falsehood. Cont. lit. Petil. l. ii. c. 51. It is on this account, that the Catholic Church wishes persons who come to the study of the most mysterious and difficult book ever published, should bring with them some preparation of mind and heart; convinced that the abuse of the strongest and best food may be converted into deadly poison. The promoters of Bible societies have published in Ireland a tract to encourage the universal perusal of the Scriptures, as the sole rule of faith. In this they give not only a mutilated and corrupt version of the letter of his late Holiness Pius VI. to the now archbishop of Florence, (to be seen at the head of this edition of the Bible) but certain letters from German Jansenists, who are described as being good Catholics. A. (Haydock Commentary Mark 4:6)

We Are Left to Battle Paganism On Our Own

Since a week ago last Saturday, we can no longer expect them to defend the law of God. These sects will work out the very logic of their ways, and in 50 or 100 years there will be only the [Catholic] Church and paganism. We will be left to fight the battle alone, and we will.

The previous quote was said by then-father Fulton J. Sheen in March of 1931 in reaction to the United States Federal Council of [Protestant] Churches' endorsement of the use contraception by married couples.

In recent weeks our Holy Father stated:

Is it imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church's public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres. The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life.

The day following our Holy Father's address to US Catholic Bishops, the US Department of Health and Human Services issued their own statement:

In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA-approved forms of contraception.

[...]

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law.

The words of Fulton J. Sheen were prophetic. With many of the protestants drowning in their own inherited doctrines on marriage, Catholics are left to battle this alone. Some may stand up against this government action in the name of "religious liberty" but that defense is weak and lacking. True fortified defense is rooted in the Catholic teaching on marriage and its purpose.

I invite you all to listen to and share the latest Audio Sancto sermon: "The Sanctity of Marriage: We Are Left to Battle Paganism On Our Own"

Catacombs or Christendom?

Pertinacious Papist has re-posted an article by James Tillman titled "An Apology for the Confessional State" I post some of it here, but encourage you to read the entire article itself.

There are perhaps but two views of the state's purpose. In the traditional view, the state helps men to some definite idea of perfection by inculcating virtue in them through good laws; such an ideal has been advanced by Aristotle, Aquinas, and various Popes. In the classical liberal view, the state allows men to pursue whatever they want by protecting their freedom of action; such an idea has been advanced by Locke and various Protestants.

[...]

Rights are meant to delimit a sphere of action, within which each individual may do what he wants and the bordrs of which government is supposed to protect. Under such a system, government does not look to whether property is used for good or for ill; it simply protects one's right to have it and use it. Government does not look to whether free speech spreads lies or truth; it simply protects one's ability/right to speak. Deliberation regarding laws centers on how best to protect the various rights, not onl whether laws will help men be better men. Like that of the Wiccans, the classical liberal motto is "If it harm none, do what ye will."

In reality, however, such an idea of rights cannot ultimately be enforced without appealing to a specific standard of morality and thus without enforcing a specific standard of morality. To see why government cannot enforce rights without an appeal to morality, we must examine a few rights in the concrete.

When such rights are examined, we find quickly that they are not absolute. Freedom of speech infamously does not give one the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Neither does it give one the right to put a sign on one's lawn advocating the lynching of African-Americans. The right to freedom of speech is outweighed by the right to life. The majority of cases, however, are not so clear. Does freedom of speech permit me to sell books advocating a subversive and Communist political philosophy? Does it permit me to sell books on how to conduct a coup d'état? Does it permit one to put up billboards quoting the Levitical laws against sodomy? Such cases are not easy to decide and will require significant prudential deliberation regarding the goods to be gained and lost by each course of action. In each case the so-called "right" to freedom of speech is clearly not an absolute right; those who make decisions do not make them based upon clear and unambiguous laws, but upon prudential weighing of the various goods involved.

Similarly, the right to freedom of religion requires prudential decision-making. Some religions involve smoking marijuana; others involve polygamy; others involve the execution of those who decide to leave that religion and the establishment of a world-wide theocracy beneath religious law. Such religions may be offensive to Catholics, just as the Catholic religion is offensive to those who believe that it teaches people to hate homosexuals, that it represses man's natural instincts, that it advocates the subjugation of women, or that it leaves one ultimately loyal to a monarch in the Vatican rather than to the United States. When government decides what sort of religion to allow and to what extent to allow it, then it does not simply take into account the right to religious freedom; one also takes into account a host of other moral evaluations regarding the importance of various goods. Similar instances might be given as regards education, the right to private property, and so on and so forth.

[...] Inasmuch as the Republican -- or even the Democrat -- agenda agrees with the Catholic, to that extent they can be made temporary allies; but we must never mistake such an alliance for a friendship. There is no agenda for the Catholic but the Catholic agenda, which would require decades of unremitting effort for its realization and which would require men to transcend most of the issues currently dividing political parties. The Catholic agenda requires us to admit what the rest of society yet hypocritically denies -- that between rival moral theories there can be no peace.

Catacombs or Christendom? Society slides and wavers between the two; but there can be no third way.

Worship the same God?

The anniversary of 9/11, Koran burning, and the beginning of Rosh Hashanah has created many opportunities for discussion on a few of the Catholic web logs I read. In a number of those discussions I see it mentioned that "We all worship the same God." The "we" refers to Muslims, Jews, and in some discussion Protestants.

Worship in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. Christian worship is "homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God."

It could be argued at length whether another religion/faith or even a specific person is or is not actually worshiping God. One alternative possibility is that the other religion/faith practices Idolatry. Idolatry is divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God. Another possibility is heresy which is defined by St. Thomas as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." St. Thomas goes on to say:

The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics

While idolatry is certainly not worship of God, Those who are of heresy and infidelity practice, at best, an imperfect worship of God.

Discussion could take place about the various degrees of worship, and when Infidelity or Heresy can turn to Idolatry. But let us put that all aside for a moment and ask ourselves a question. What does it mean if the statement is true that "we" worship the same God? Does it mean that those other religions/faiths are not called to conversion? Does it mean that we as Catholics should not pray and work towards the conversion of their souls? Is it a means of just recognizing "common ground"? For what purpose is the statement made?

On the question of "common ground"... it seems that when attempting dialog with a Muslim or Jew (and sometimes the Protestant)... simply saying that we worship the same God is not received well. It is not received well, because often those other religions/faiths do not themselves believe that we worship the same God.

I leave things open ended a bit in hopes to encourage discussion of the topic. Please remember to keep it Charitable.