The following is going to upset a few people, but these aren't my opinions, but rather a quote and a perspective of what could very well be percolating under the surface of US politics today.
The following is an except from a much larger study... But just this small example says a great deal.
Merging state and church, with consequent persecution for dissenters, has always been the way of Rome, both pagan and papal. The Catholic Church has never fully accepted the principle of religious tolerance for everybody, though it has always demanded it whenever its own interests are imperiled or its designs curtailed. That was before and during the Middle Ages as well as in Reformation times. But what about today? This is how The Shepherd of the Valley, a Catholic publication, chillingly on 22 November 1851 predicted our own American future in an article entitled “Religious Toleration”: If Catholics ever gain,—which they surely will do, though at a distant day,—an immense numerical superiority, religious freedom in this country is at an end. So say our enemies. So we believe. But in which sense do we believe it? In what sense are we the advocates of religious intolerance? . . . We simply mean, that a Christian people will not consider [tolerate] the ridicule of Christianity, the denial of its fundamental truths, of the immortality of the soul and the existence of God; . . . that the foundation will be laid for a legislation which shall restrain the propagation of certain doctrines; that men will no longer be permitted to attack dogmas with which morality is inseparably connected; that the State will take its proper position as ancillary to the Church. It is useless to disguise this fact; every man’s reason will tell him that it is true, and every Catholic will feel that he wishes that time were come, even whilst he wastes his breath in empty praise of liberty of speech. . . . The world has nothing to fear from the empire of the Church, because the Church can never command or authorize the slightest wrong. She is absolutely infallible in all points of faith and morals;. . . Her enemies, it is true, scoff at her claims and hold her as a mere human and fallible institution, or . . . directed by the Arch-enemy of the human race. They are consistent in opposing her so long as they regard her thus; their error lies—not in believing that she aims at absolute dominion and would rule, not only the actions but the most secret thoughts of man—for in this they are correct enough, it is impossible to exaggerate her intense desire to extend her empire, and to bring the whole human race into subjection to herself; the error of her enemies lies in believing her to be human, or devilish, and not divine; . . . We have said that we are not the advocate of religious freedom, and we repeat it, we are not. The liberty to believe contrary to the teachings of the Church, is the liberty to believe a lie; the liberty to think otherwise than as she permits, is the liberty to abuse the mind and pollute the imagination; from such liberty may we and those we love at all times be preserved.58 When this came to be written, Pope Pius IX was still lording it over the Papal States in Italy. Thirteen years later, on 8 December 1864, he issued his notorious Syllabus of Errors, containing ideas rather similar to those in The Shepherd of the Valley. Here are two of the propositions that he condemned: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship” and “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” Also obnoxious to him was the notion that “it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.”59 The Shepherd of the Valley published its article in this land of the free and of religious liberty, confidently predicting what will one day happen here. No cardinal or pope has ever unequivocally and without qualification rejected those utterances, nor have they roundly turned on Pius IX. After all, like every pontiff throughout history, he was supposedly infallible—as Vatican I declared in 1870. The Roman Church has always cherished such thoughts, as its actions in some modern Catholic countries still attest. To see just a little how things can be, let us here momentarily cast a look beyond our southern border. Mexico constitutionally guarantees that other religions shall have freedomo worship, yet its authorities are not infrequently powerless to enforce this noble ideal. We cite an example from a 25 February 2008 news item in the Religion Today Summaries: “‘Traditionalist Catholics’ this week expelled 20 evangelical Christians from a town in Guerrero state and cut off the electricity and water supplies to eight Protestant families in Chiapas state, Christian sources said. Compass Direct News reported that authorities in Tenango Tepexi, Guerrero, on Monday February 18 removed 20 Christians in three families, including 14 children, from their homes. Sources said the Christians were temporarily held in town offices, then loaded onto trucks and dumped on the edge of town. Town leaders supportive of the ‘traditionalist Catholics,’ who practice a blend of Catholic and native religions, told them they would be burned to death if they tried to return.”
Has anyone considered what or who is motivating the controversy over immigration? Who is supporting the open border policies to the south? What is the majority religion of those seeking illegal residency and freedom to vote North of the Rio Grande?
The following is an except from a much larger study... But just this small example says a great deal.
Merging state and church, with consequent persecution for dissenters, has always been the way of Rome, both pagan and papal. The Catholic Church has never fully accepted the principle of religious tolerance for everybody, though it has always demanded it whenever its own interests are imperiled or its designs curtailed. That was before and during the Middle Ages as well as in Reformation times. But what about today? This is how The Shepherd of the Valley, a Catholic publication, chillingly on 22 November 1851 predicted our own American future in an article entitled “Religious Toleration”: If Catholics ever gain,—which they surely will do, though at a distant day,—an immense numerical superiority, religious freedom in this country is at an end. So say our enemies. So we believe. But in which sense do we believe it? In what sense are we the advocates of religious intolerance? . . . We simply mean, that a Christian people will not consider [tolerate] the ridicule of Christianity, the denial of its fundamental truths, of the immortality of the soul and the existence of God; . . . that the foundation will be laid for a legislation which shall restrain the propagation of certain doctrines; that men will no longer be permitted to attack dogmas with which morality is inseparably connected; that the State will take its proper position as ancillary to the Church. It is useless to disguise this fact; every man’s reason will tell him that it is true, and every Catholic will feel that he wishes that time were come, even whilst he wastes his breath in empty praise of liberty of speech. . . . The world has nothing to fear from the empire of the Church, because the Church can never command or authorize the slightest wrong. She is absolutely infallible in all points of faith and morals;. . . Her enemies, it is true, scoff at her claims and hold her as a mere human and fallible institution, or . . . directed by the Arch-enemy of the human race. They are consistent in opposing her so long as they regard her thus; their error lies—not in believing that she aims at absolute dominion and would rule, not only the actions but the most secret thoughts of man—for in this they are correct enough, it is impossible to exaggerate her intense desire to extend her empire, and to bring the whole human race into subjection to herself; the error of her enemies lies in believing her to be human, or devilish, and not divine; . . . We have said that we are not the advocate of religious freedom, and we repeat it, we are not. The liberty to believe contrary to the teachings of the Church, is the liberty to believe a lie; the liberty to think otherwise than as she permits, is the liberty to abuse the mind and pollute the imagination; from such liberty may we and those we love at all times be preserved.58 When this came to be written, Pope Pius IX was still lording it over the Papal States in Italy. Thirteen years later, on 8 December 1864, he issued his notorious Syllabus of Errors, containing ideas rather similar to those in The Shepherd of the Valley. Here are two of the propositions that he condemned: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship” and “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” Also obnoxious to him was the notion that “it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.”59 The Shepherd of the Valley published its article in this land of the free and of religious liberty, confidently predicting what will one day happen here. No cardinal or pope has ever unequivocally and without qualification rejected those utterances, nor have they roundly turned on Pius IX. After all, like every pontiff throughout history, he was supposedly infallible—as Vatican I declared in 1870. The Roman Church has always cherished such thoughts, as its actions in some modern Catholic countries still attest. To see just a little how things can be, let us here momentarily cast a look beyond our southern border. Mexico constitutionally guarantees that other religions shall have freedomo worship, yet its authorities are not infrequently powerless to enforce this noble ideal. We cite an example from a 25 February 2008 news item in the Religion Today Summaries: “‘Traditionalist Catholics’ this week expelled 20 evangelical Christians from a town in Guerrero state and cut off the electricity and water supplies to eight Protestant families in Chiapas state, Christian sources said. Compass Direct News reported that authorities in Tenango Tepexi, Guerrero, on Monday February 18 removed 20 Christians in three families, including 14 children, from their homes. Sources said the Christians were temporarily held in town offices, then loaded onto trucks and dumped on the edge of town. Town leaders supportive of the ‘traditionalist Catholics,’ who practice a blend of Catholic and native religions, told them they would be burned to death if they tried to return.”
Has anyone considered what or who is motivating the controversy over immigration? Who is supporting the open border policies to the south? What is the majority religion of those seeking illegal residency and freedom to vote North of the Rio Grande?
Last edited by a moderator:
