Replies

Dear RFEngineer,

"....and this is baloney."

What's baloney? That the concept of freedom of conscience has always been a Catholic idea? Go read St. Thomas Aquinas.

That religious tolerance was introduced into the thirteen original colonies by Catholics?

Go read some history.

"First of all, and a source of the arguments you posted is that Catholicism is somewhat monolithic..."

Not at all. I've readily stated that many Catholics at many times have not been tolerant of other religions. Catholics are far from monolithic.

However, authoritative Catholic doctrine is monolithic. If you have any doubts about that, you need to study further.

"It is this decentralized nature (and the impossibility of consensus on 'one true path')..."

Tell that to Jesus, Who told us that He was the One True Way, and founded His Church, against which the gates of Hell would never prevail, on Peter, the Rock.

There is no evidence that the early Church accepted a plurality of religious truths. THAT really IS a Protestant notion, although not a Christian one.

"...that is the source of the tolerance that is enshrined in the Constitution."

No, that's a bad reading of history. A better reading of history is that in Europe, after the rise of Protestant states from the period of the Reformation, it was clear to both Catholic and Protestant states that peace couldn't be achieved if each tried to force the other to accept each one's religion. From the Catholic perspective, I think the philosophical underpinnings came from the belief that peace between states is a moral good, and from the aforementioned concept of freedom from coercion of conscience.

As there came to be a settled peace between Protestant and Catholic states in Europe, the question of what to do with religious minorities in each arose. It occurred to some Catholic and Protestant folks that some form of religious tolerance, even where there are established churches, might be a good idea. For Catholics, this developed from the idea that one ought to be free from coercion of one's conscience. For Protestants, the idea was smuggled into the philosophies of Locke and others from Catholic ideas of natural law. On each side, these gave the philosophical underpinnings of the development of societal religious tolerance, and eventually, religious liberty.

As for your statements concerning Henry VIII, Usurper, there really isn't much to discuss. The "history" in which you believe is counterfactual. Henry VIII, before becoming an apostate, was actually a favorite of Rome's. He was lauded by the Vicar of Christ for his defense of the Seven Sacraments against the reformers, and was declared for his deeds a Defender of the Faith. It is ironic that his heirs believed that they could appropriate this title, like an inherited crown or jewel, for themselves, in defense of their own apostasy from Christ's Church, but that's another question altogether.

The fact is, there were many in Rome who wanted to accede to the Usurper's unreasonable request to divorce his real wife and cover with the cloak of respectability his adulterous relationship with the loose woman who succeeded his real wife. However, the pope would not be persuaded to fall into error for merely political purposes.

And after the Usurper committed his act of apostasy, his own non serviam, then what did he do? Why, he stole the lands and moneys of the Church to replenish his own bankrupt treasury! Yep, that was a real spiritual thing to do!

And then what did he do, after putting away his first wife and calling "wife" the adulteress who consorted with him? Well, he got rid of her, and ultimately, took to himself four more "wives," covering his manifold adulteries with the cloak of the "Church of England."

After reading Jesus' words regarding divorce and remarriage, it has always boggled my mind that anyone could come to the defense of the Usurper or his crimes against the Holy Catholic Church.

There are others here better versed in this sordid chapter of history who can better educate you and relieve you of your misunderstandings.

sitetest

I've readily stated that many Catholics at many times have not been tolerant of other religions.

With a few notable and bright exceptions, this seems to be the rule for FR's Catholics. An intolerant, bigoted, and mean spirited group of Catholics such as I have never encountered on the street. And they are not surpassed by the worst of the fundamentalists I have encountered.

Catholics are far from monolithic.

This is good to know. I used to think kindly of Roman Catholics in general. But maybe I was (un?)lucky and by chance just happened to meet some of the few good folks in among the bigoted, intolerant wolf-packs.

I have a completely different view developed watching FR's Catholics over several years now. I do not like what I see; there is no way I would ever become a Catholic now (not that I have ever considered it...).

So much to comment on, so little time. I will respond to this gem:

"There is no evidence that the early Church accepted a plurality of religious truths. THAT really IS a Protestant notion, although not a Christian one. "

I don't disagree with the former, but the latter is outrageous - Protestantism isn't Christianity? Surely you don't mean that......

The Protestant movement was started because men of conscience couldn't abide by the misdeeds of the Catholic church. (and no, good Henry was not among them....he hated Martin Luther - like good Catholics of his time had to). No, It was a failure of men, not The Word.

This bickering is pointless though, but I am appreciative that you have given me a couple of interesting lines of inquiry for next time.

Your fellow Christian/sinner thanks you for the discussion, but I'm bowing out before a jihad breaks out.

I hope to resume the discussion one day when tempers have cooled a bit. Interesting that Protestants "returning home" draws such fire though....I'd have expected the opposite.