bump

We can say that Vatican II changed things.

Prior to Vatican II, “religious freedom” to Catholics meant only the right to be Catholic. Hence, non-Catholics could be compelled to be Catholics but not visa versa. Through the 19th Century, the Catholics supported monarchs in France and elsewhere against Protestants and secularists. Even in the 20th Century, the Catholics supported dictatorial rulers in Spain and elsewhere against the radical left-wing.

But, this intolerance wasn’t unique to Catholicism. Lutheranism taught that only the princes of the world had religious freedom. In our own country’s history, and in England prior to the Founding, there were established religions. Most of the colonies had established religions; congregational in New England, Episcopalian in the South, with tolerance famously the rule only in certain places (e.g., Pennsylvania and Rhode Island). We might associated religious tolerance first with Holland; then, with the movement for disestablishment among the dissenters and free-thinkers such as our own James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

In contrast to the Enlightenment, Classical Liberal view, the opposite view has been that of an anti-clerical state. Thus, the embrace of this aspect (religious tolerance) of Enlightenment thinking by the Catholics in Vatican II might be viewed merely as an attempt to make an alliance with conservative Protestants and secularist liberals, to prevent the anti-clerical, radical left from ascending to power and attacking the Catholics.

Thus it could be said, the Catholics, to include Pope Francis, tread on thin ice by repeatedly attacking neo-liberalism, calling it the new tyranny and calling them idol worshippers. It really should be embarrassing to somebody adorned with as many icons as are Catholics to call others idol worshippers. (Jesus says judge not lest ye be judged.) As anybody who looks will see, this Pope captivates the radical left-wing of the world. We will see who converts whom when it comes to the social teachings and sacred traditions of the Catholic Church.

Anyway, in the modern era, the radical left finds religion to be useful to the state. Thus liberal Protestantism is now coming to be embraced by progressive socialists, just as the Nazis fomented a perverted religion to substitute for the traditional religions of the country. We saw this marriage of religion and progressive socialism in the “Social Gospel” movement at the turn of the 19th into the 20th century. The project was put on hold when everything progressive became embarrassed by the Nazi experience. But all that is history now. So much water under the bridge. And, not so much forgotten as never known to those who are alive today. Pope Francis makes it appear that the Catholics will join with liberal Protestants in openly embracing the Social Gospel of redistributionism.

BTTT!

FULL TEXT VERSION

Locke by Sir Godfrey Kneller (1646-1723) 1697

Often touted as a landmark text in the history of religious freedom, John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) is remarkable in wisely limiting the power of “the magistrate … to do or meddle with nothing but barely in order to securing the civil peace and properties of his subjects,” and thus of granting “an absolute and universal right to toleration” concerning matters of “speculative opinions and divine worship.” In other words, the state has no power to compel belief or unbelief in any particular doctrine.

Still, the text is more complicated and limited in its vision of tolerance than the received tradition may suggest. For instance, with respect to “practical principles” of social action, there is also a claim to toleration “but yet only so far as they do not tend to the disturbance of the state”; that is, so long as these religious claims do not disturb or curtail the public interest. Fair enough, for certainly we do not suppose that religious freedom extends to harming others or interfering with the just exercise of law.

But when it comes to Catholics, Locke’s generosity shrivels, convinced as he is that Catholics refuse to be “subjects of any prince but the pope,” thus blurring the lines between speculation, worship, and “doctrines absolutely destructive to the society wherein they live.”

Locke considers his hostility warranted by two claims. First, because “where [papists] have power they think themselves bound to deny it to others”— since Catholic do not, he thinks, grant religious freedom to others, they do not deserve it themselves. Second, and what is more interesting at our cultural moment, Locke believes that Catholics do not, and cannot, be trusted to give genuine allegiance to the law since “they owe a blind obedience to an infallible pope, who has the keys of their consciences tied to his girdle, and can upon occasion dispense with all their oaths, promises and the obligations they have to their prince.” Governed ultimately by the pope, their allegiance is to a foreign prince, an authority other than the nation’s laws, and they are not quite faithful citizens.

Setting aside whether Locke understood Catholic thought, it’s notable that the limits of tolerance are defined by the state, and granted only insofar as the subjects do not claim, ultimately, a source of conscience independent of the state. After all, would not any dissenter from the civil religion who placed their conscience in some source other than the state by in the very same position, whether or not they were Roman Catholic? Might not, for instance, a Presbyterian or an evangelical who dissented from the Church of England—to take Locke’s context—because of their allegiance to Scripture view the authority of the law as relative, as not ultimate?

Flash forward to our own time and consider the oddity of how the HHS contraception mandate is playing itself out. On the one hand, we are told that religious freedom absolutely protects our freedom of worship and belief so long as the practical principles of social action flowing from belief into hospitals, schools, and charities are kept distinct and unblurred from religion. In the words of the Bishops, this “reduces freedom of religion to freedom of worship.”

And not just for Catholics. The odd case in New York City of Orthodox Jews being charged with violations of human rights since their insistence of a modest dress code within their stores was motivated by religious impulse. Similar dress codes could be found at all number of eateries and public establishments around the city, but because this code, according to the human rights commission, was religious in motivation it went from the tolerated world of worship and doctrine to the not-to-be-tolerated world of sociality. The same is working itself out in the various court cases about bed and breakfasts, bakers, and photographers with respect to gay marriage. Religious belief is tolerated if it is only thought and sung, but not if followed in public ways.

Now the obvious reason for this is that everyone has religious freedom, including, and most fundamentally, freedom from coercion. Basic to free exercise, it is thought, is immunity from anyone else moving into the sphere of sovereignty proper to each individual or association. True enough, but this seems inadequate to explain the fury of those who cannot believe or tolerate this “retrograde” Catholic refusal to formally cooperate with the provision of contraception and abortifacients.

Contraception, to limit our example, is easily available, inexpensive (often free), and legal, and the Church in the United States has launched no movement to overturn Griswold or make condoms illegal. And yet the rhetoric of suspicion about Catholics makes it seem as though a religious order’s refusal to pay for contraception is tantamount to a gross violation of a person’s right to be free from religious encroachment, even though the order has not suggested that those employed by their school or institution cannot buy or use contraception. As Judge Rovner put it in her dissent from the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Korte and Grote, Catholic business owners refusing to cover contraception use their religious freedom “offensively rather than defensively.” But how is it a violation of someone’s liberty to not pay for their use of the Pill?

The answer seems endemic to a tension within the liberal order itself, as evidenced by Locke. Religion can be tolerated so long, but only so long, as it does not interfere with the public order or call the legitimacy of the state to define the public order for itself into question. That is, tame religions are tolerable, those which do not propose truths for the conscience of all.

When the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council were debating the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis humanae, European bishops, particularly those from behind the Iron Curtain, were insistent in their interventions that the “public order” warrant for limiting and curtailing religion needed differentiation, in part because of their justified concern that the Soviets would use “public order” as a weapon against the Church. Consequently, the Declaration insists that any impeding of religion must be done for the sake of “just public order.” Again and again, the Declaration outlines that public order is not a blank check for the state, for the limitation must be just.

To put it another way, since religious liberty is a demand of the natural law, the limiting principle on religious freedom must also belong to the natural law. It must be a reasonable and naturally lawful ground to limit another’s religious exercise, and such a test is rather more robust than the vagaries of Locke’s claims about consciences tied to the Pope’s girdle.

In our own age, which is largely hostile to the natural law—even fearful of it—we should not be surprised to find our polity largely confused about what counts as religious freedom, what counts as a fair limit on another’s freedom, and what counts as the incursion of one’s religious exercise against another. In the great moral debates of our own time—abortion, embryo-destructive research, marriage, and others—we see this internal confusion of the Lockean tradition working itself out, namely, that religion is free so long as it’s about pious thoughts and incense, but once it appears in the streets, or laboratories, or chambers of law religion must serve the interests of the state, as defined by the state, and without reference to natural law.

Given this trajectory, there should be no surprise when members and institutions of traditional religions, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Jew, are presented with an understanding of religious freedom which tells them they must not think themselves entitled to speak or act in public, and certainly must not challenge the authority of the state.

And this, this is intolerable.

Editor’s note: The image of John Locke above was painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller in 1697.

“Pope Francis makes it appear that the Catholics will join with liberal Protestants in openly embracing the Social Gospel of redistributionism”

He will be no different than JP2 or B16. The Catholic Church is the only faith in the world that will never allow homosexual “marriage”, abortion, contraception or women priests. His thinking on economics (which is not infallible), is the same the two most recent popes. Nothing “liberal” at all about Francis and the Catholic haters will find that out soon enough.

Catholicism was excluded from John Locke’s “Letter Concerning Tolerance” since followers of the Roman Catholic religion owe their first allegiance to a “foreign prince”—their religion over their patriotism, their God over their country. Statism is the love of State, not the love of God, and that was John Locke in a nutshell.

Appreciate your thoughtful posit.

I should hope that all people put God first. Catholics may look to a “foreign prince” in that regard, but is this a bad thing? Weren’t practically all the conspirators against Hitler Catholics?

Revolt is not something to take lightly. Martin Luther described it as a mortal sin (and he was wrong). Calvin said that individuals should not take it upon themselves to revolt but should look to intermediaries, such as state governments. In our country’s history, the Founders draw upon the colonial legislatures. Among the scholastics in the Catholic tradition were some who propounded an absolute, individual right to revolt.

Here is what I say: There’s a difference between disobeying an unjust law and revolt. I should hope that we can be effective in our pursuit of justice to rely on peaceful means. Civil disobedience and imprisonment are often preferable to revolt. But, if it is necessary (among other conditions), it is right, no, it is a duty to take up arms.

Catholicism was excluded from John Locke’s “Letter Concerning Tolerance” since followers of the Roman Catholic religion owe their first allegiance to a “foreign prince”—their religion over their patriotism, their God over their country... Catholics refuse to be “subjects of any prince but the pope,”

If "religion over their patriotism, their God over their country" was all there was to it, then it would have excluded the majority of Christians. But it was the allegiance to a “foreign prince” - in the light of history that warranted the wariness and distrust of Catholics in the US.

And if Rome did not change, but was as in her past in which the state acted as her servant to carry out her ecclesiastical judgments (denying liberty of conscience and worship, requiring the state to punish or murder doctrinal nonconformists, etc.), then it would have necessitated the US treating her as they did to Mormons before they acquiesced to the state.

But Rome did change in this regard, while it is also abundantly clear that the majority of those she has treated as members in life and dead - regardless of whether other RCs do - choose the liberal government over God. Thus Catholics overall have become an assert to the liberal state.

And which works to deify the state, as it is set forth was providing our daily bread, and never expresses gratitude to or dependance upon anyone of anything, as it sits as a queen, and is antagonistic toward faith that manifests a higher allegiance.

The odd case in New York City of Orthodox Jews being charged with violations of human rights since their insistence of a modest dress code within their stores was motivated by religious impulse. Similar dress codes could be found at all number of eateries and public establishments around the city, but because this code, according to the human rights commission, was religious in motivation it went from the tolerated world of worship and doctrine to the not-to-be-tolerated world of sociality.

That is pertinent, and akin to the baker case, which shows the aforementioned antagonism, and the bigotry that refuses to see that all ideology is based on religion in the broad sense, and thus the state cannot antiseptically separate itself from belief. But it will reflect the overall faith of those who elect it, even though it is supposed to reflect that of its Founders. And thus the state is reflecting the mostly post-Christian faith of America.

There’s a difference between disobeying an unjust law and revolt. I

There’s a difference between principled dissent - which both Christianity and America began with (and thus supports the principle of government)- and anarchy.

“But Rome did change in this regard, while it is also abundantly clear that the majority of those she has treated as members in life and dead - regardless of whether other RCs do - choose the liberal government over God. Thus Catholics overall have become an assert to the liberal state”

Locke was a statist, the father of liberalism and the great hero of the Protestant movement. Catholics and Lutherans, who have a lot in common, were murdered wholesale by the Nazis because they put God over Hitler.

So you can badmouth Catholics all you want, but you can’t change history and millions of Catholics over the past 2,000 years have died because they would not put the State over God. Locke had no use for them for that very reason.

Locke was a statist, the father of liberalism and the great hero of the Protestant movement.

You have a history of making statements which evidence an absence of objective examination, which is par for a Catholic whose criteria for truth only seems to be whether it supports Rome and attacks her enemies.

Here you make Locke a great hero of Prots, though he was "expressive in his hostility to principal doctrines such as original sin, divine election, and even trinitarianism," but like as the absurd RC argument that imagines that affirming some things Rome teaches logically requires submitting to the whole, you infer that affirming certain aspects means he is a hero of the faith.

One of which aspects examples why traditional type RCs would scorn him, as in essence they are anti-American, for Locke held that,

(1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.^{[21] - Letters Concerning Toleration}

So much for Inquisitions. Or even Puritan theocracies

And supporting this aspect of classical liberalism, or that governments need the consent of the governed, is not the same as supporting liberalism today. And Locke is seen as more libertarian rather than a statist advocate of excessive gov. control.

Meanwhile, the man you call a hero of Prots is seen as influencing Catholic Social Teaching, as seen from the very site you posted this from:

How John Locke Influenced Catholic Social Teaching

by Joe Hargrave

It isn’t often that John Locke is mentioned in discussions of Catholic social teaching, unless it is to set him up as an example of all that the Church supposedly rejects. After all, Locke is considered one of the founders of a liberal and individualist political tradition that was rejected by the papacy in the 19th and 20th centuries. However, a closer examination of both Locke’s Two Treatises of Civil Government (FT & ST) and the papal encyclical that set modern Catholic social teaching in motion, Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (RN), reveals that Locke was not a pure “individualist” as many have assumed, nor was Rerum Novarum a categorical rejection of all things “individual.” Rather, both Locke and Leo XIII craft their basic political arguments — especially with respect to the right to private property — based on the same assumptions about natural law, natural right, and Christian obligation... - http://www.crisismagazine.com/2010/how-john-locke-influenced-catholic-social-teaching

So you can badmouth Catholics all you want, but you can’t change history and millions of Catholics over the past 2,000 years have died because they would not put the State over God

Rather, you can badmouth Prots all you want, but you can’t change history which abundantly testifies to her unholy unScriptural use of the sword of men to achieve her ends against doctrinal challenges, by souls who would not put the State nor Rome over God, which type of recourse early Prots had to unlearn, and Locke reacted against.

But tell me, do you condemn the papal sanctioned torture and killing of those she deemed "heretics?"

The original article I posted was about religious tolerance and how Catholics are always excluded, and that Locke was a big part of it. His hatred of Catholicism is legendary. You sir, as usual, turned it into just another Catholic-bashing.

The original article I posted was about religious tolerance and how Catholics are always excluded...You sir, as usual, turned it into just another Catholic-bashing.

Rather, while Rome historically excluded religious tolerance, and thus the resistance to giving them them the equal rights you complain about, RCs are not at all restricted from incessantly posting about Rome, and considering your past, it is hard to believe this hypocritical article you posted was not another attempt to engage in another of your usual broad brushed anti-Protestant "bash."

There’s no denying a distinct pattern is showing this to be the case.

Did you even bother to read the article? It pertains to all faiths that put God over the state. The machine gun comes next. I worship no SOB that sits on a throne in Washington, DC. That is what the article is about.

“there should be no surprise when members and institutions of traditional religions, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Jew, are presented with an understanding of religious freedom which tells them they must not think themselves entitled to speak or act in public, and certainly must not challenge the authority of the state.

And this, this is intolerable”