Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies First Volume - The Catholic Attitude to War ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 12/04/2009 9:22:46 PM PST by GonzoII

The Catholic attitude to war

1557. You speak of a Christian solution of social troubles, but did not the Great War show the utter failure of Christianity altogether?

No. Christianity did not fail. The nations failed to observe Christian principles, a totally different thing. When I say the nations, I mean those in political control of their destinies, and the general outlook of the peoples concerned. Many individuals who fought were excellent Christians, believing the cause of their own country to be just and defending the right as they conceived it with the highest motives. And this on both sides.

1558. What a contrast to the Western Christians was the peace amongst the pagan Asian!

It may be that the Asians were at peace when the Westerns happened to be at war. But a study of history shows that the West has been at peace when the East has been at war. If the Japanese are at war with China when Europe happens to be at peace, a Japanese could say with equal lack of logic, "Has not Shintoism failed when you see the Asians at war while the Occidentals have peace?" These are the ups and downs of history. And in any case, as I have so often pointed out, temporal benefits are not the test of Christianity.

1559. Why did Christians fight, killing men they never knew and who never did them any harm?

Every war is a misery, and is due to injustice of some kind, or to misunderstanding. And whoever is really responsible for war is very guilty before God. But God alone can judge as to the guilt of the respective parties. As for the killing of men we never knew, remember that men can be considered as individuals or as units of another nation. If one nation is defending itself against the injustice of another nation, then the soldiers are considered not as individuals, but as national units. War is unchristian, but it is not unchristian for individuals to fight for their country.

1560. I submit that no war is justified, and that it is wrong for individuals to kill each other in war time.

You are confusing various aspects of the question. It is wrong for any nation or any group of politicians to give cause for war by unjust treatment of others, or by deliberate aggression. But if another nation wants to slaughter us unjustly, then, although the war as a war is unjustifiable, we are certainly justified in defending ourselves; and our soldiers are justified in killing the soldiers of the unjustly aggressive army.

1561. God says, "Thou shalt not kill." How can my country send me forth to kill?

"Thou shalt not kill" means without just cause. For example, if a thief is on the point of shooting me, I may kill him first if possible, provided I know that my merely wounding him is not likely to save my life. Therefore I am allowed to kill an unjust aggressor. And if my country is defending itself against an unjust attack, or defending its rights by just attack, it is not a crime to fight on her behalf. Loyalty to one's country is a virtue. As a rule, individual soldiers cannot decide whether the powers that be in a given country are right or wrong in their decision upon so extreme a measure as war. And with the good motive of defending what he conceives to be the rights of his country, the ordinary soldier is justified in his participation.

1562. Christ said, "Love your enemies."

He did. But He did not say, "Love their enmity." They do wrong in being my enemies, and the sooner I stop them from being my enemies the better for them.

1563. Roman theology dispenses a man from the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" in war time; it dispenses a man from the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" in times of grave necessity; why not from "Thou shalt not commit adultery" while the Church is at it?

There is no parity between this last commandment and the two former ones under the circumstances of their application. We must be careful about the right interpretation of these laws. "Thou shalt not kill" does not prevent just and lawful killing. Legitimate public authority may condemn a man to death because the common good is more important than the individual good. Nor only is it lawful for the state to remove murderers completely from society by death. An individual may kill an unjust aggressor if it be necessary for the preservation of his own life. And in Scripture we notice how God Himself sanctioned war over and over again, when other means did not avail to secure justice.

"Thou shalt not steal" means that you can never take unjustly the goods of another against his reasonable will. But every word of this explanation must be noted. If a man is actually dying of starvation he may take food from those who have more than they need. But that is not stealing, for it is not unjust in extreme necessity to take food which is the product of the earth for the nutrition of the human race, nor is it against the reasonable will of the owner. It would be unreasonable to hold more food than you need and watch a fellow human being die of starvation.

But there can never be any exception from the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." That commandment is absolute, because it can never be necessary to dispense from it in the interests of justice or for the necessities of human life. Adultery is always a serious evil, and therefore always seriously forbidden.

1564. Because God ordained certain wars, it does not follow that wars not ordained by Him could be lawful.

From God's own actions in this matter it follows that, provided similar grave causes, and similar moral principles are verified, just and defensive wars are justified.

1565. I cannot conceive that the Catholic Church, if it be Christian, would say to the nations, "Well, since you cannot settle your difficulties by arbitration, fight it out in unrestrained butchery."

The Catholic Church would certainly never say that.

1566. Surely the Church should remain strictly neutral, and try to conciliate the wayward nations.

I agree. But the trouble is, what if the nations will not accept any of her efforts at conciliation? If one ambitious and aggressive nation unjustly invades another's territory, and insists on trampling down the people, the invaded nation must either fight for liberty or go out of existence. An unjustly attacked nation is not obliged to be simply trodden under foot. Its soldiers may lawfully fight back in defense.

1567. During the Great War in Europe, it is common knowledge that the Pope was not neutral, but sympathised with the Germans.

The Pope remained strictly neutral. When nations are angry, they are like angry individuals, who at once suspect that all are against them who do not side actively with them. While many among the Allies accused the Pope of being pro-German, the Germans accused him of being against their nation. Count Ludendorf, in his book, "My War Memories," p. 514, says, "The Pope was in favor of a peace expecting us Germans to make considerable sacrifices, while the Allies got off very cheaply."

1568. The Pope rules 400 millions. Why did he not stop the last war?

He could not do so, or he certainly would have prevented it. He did his best, suggesting all means of peace, laboring for the welfare and exchange of prisoners, and giving utterly impartial advice. In 1914 Pius X tried to prevent the outbreak of war, and urgently pointed out the terrible miseries which would ensue. In 1915 Benedict XV made it his first duty to bring about peace if at all possible. But the Allies did not want peace then. They met in London, and drew up what is known as the "London Pact." In it we read, "France, Britain, and Russia undertake to support Italy in preventing the Holy See from taking any steps whatever for the conclusion of peace, or the settlement of questions bound up with the war." Under these circumstances you cannot blame the Pope for not having made peace. If the nations will not have peace, they won't have it.

1569. Had the Pope imposed peace he would have won millions of converts to the Catholic Church.

I do not think so. People become Catholics because God gives them the grace to see that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ. This grace is usually the fruit of prayer, not the fruit ol witnessing the Pope stop the nations from fighting. If the Pope cannot bring about peace, men say that he cannot be the representative of Christ. But had he succeeded in imposing peace, it is more than likely that men would have called him an interfering politician who should mind his own business.

1570. Your talk about the Pope and peace is nonsense. Is he not trying to awaken a strong anti-communist feeling in order to launch a tear against the Soviet?

No. He is trying to preserve Christians from a very grave danger to their religion.

1571. He conjures nations to unite together and to save themselves and mankind "even at the cost of heavy sacrifices." What do those last words mean but war?

They have nothing to do with war. They demand that men be prepared for the sacrifice of their selfish commercial interests and their greed, in order that the inequalities and injustice prevailing in the present economic system be remedied. The wealthy capitalists must be prepared to forego some of their wealth, and make it available for employment and the bettering of the poor. Work must be made available to the unemployed, and those who are employed must be prepared to work for reasonable remuneration. If the nations would follow the advice of the Pope, war would become almost impossible. It is the absence of a spirit of self-sacrifice which is the very cause of war.

1572. He urges the use of "all useful means" in his campaign. Does not that include war?

No. The Pope is anxious to remedy the miseries of mankind. War is not a useful means to that end. It causes still more misery and abject poverty.

1573. He speaks of the satanic hosts of militant atheism. That obviously indicates the Soviet Union.

Many supporters of the Soviet Union will not thank you for your implicit admission. However, the Pope had not the Soviet Union in mind when he wrote those words. He was indicating forces actively working in the midst of almost every nation today.

1574. Would the Pope approve of war against the Soviet to bring back Russian Catholics to the faith?

No. The Catholic Church does not rely upon force of arms to propagate the Catholic faith or win back deserters.

1575. Why does the Church maintain a criminal silence concerning the manufacture of munitions in order to have another war?

They are not being manufactured in order to have another war. No one wants another war. But each nation has the right to possess adequate means of defense and self-protection, unless all nations agree simultaneously to disarm themselves. In November, 1932, Cardinal Bourne addressed a special disarmament conference in London, and said, "It is the manifest duty of Catholics to work and pray for disarmament; and the Holy See has often spoken in this sense." But he added, "This can only be, if the right of defense be safeguarded without such means of self-protection. We must not be led away by mere sentiment; and if we are apprehensive of future attack, we must rely on our own military protection, if other protection be not guaranteed."

1576. Why does not the Church denounce absolutely the holocaust being prepared by capitalists for the people?

Because the Catholic Church is eminently sane and Christian. Being sane, she realizes that the armament problem concerns self-defense and protection rather than aggressive tendencies. Being Christian, she grants to nations as well as to individuals the right to be prepared against possible unjust aggression.

1577. Do you teach Catholics to be the disciples of the Prince of Peace on Sundays, and allow them to work in munition factories during the week?

If self-defense is allowed, as it is, the preparation of means of self-defense is lawful. No individual nation can afford to disarm while others do not General disarmament is good and to be attained if possible. But until that is secured, no individual nation is obliged to leave itself unprotected. The manufacture of war material is evil or not according to the intention prompting the manufacture of it. If for war of unjust aggression, it is unlawful; if for legitimate defense, it is lawful.

1578. Is all this a temporal matter in which the Church does not see fit to interfere?

It is a temporal matter in which spiritual and moral principles must be applied lest justice be violated. God has never forbidden war in all circumstances. In the Old Testament He sanctioned the vindication of justice by defensive and punitive wars. Christ forbade all injustice, but never forbade war. He praised the faith of the Centurion who had said, "I have under me soldiers," but added no command to give up a military career. So, too, He used an ordinary fact of experience saying, "What king about to make war against another doth not first think whether with 10,000 he can meet him who hath 20,000?" He takes the fact of wars as an accepted thing, and utters no word of condemnation.

1579. You tell us, then, that killing is permissible in a just war, or by an agent of the state for the common good?

That is so.

1580. You have said also that motive makes morality.

A good motive is a necessary condition of morality in the sense that an evil intention vitiates any action.

1581. What would be the moral position of individual soldiers in an invading army?

The invading nation could, of course, be justly aggressive in vindication of its rights had they been violated by the invaded nation. But if the invading nation has unjustly declared war, prompted to aggression by mere ambition, then no individual citizen of that invading nation who knows quite well that the war is unjust is free in any way to volunteer or assist If he does so he is guilty of immoral and sinful conduct Each individual invader therefore who is aware that the aggression is unjust, and who is voluntarily present in the army, is guilty of sin.

1582. In the Great War some nation must have been guilty from a moral point of view in causing such suffering. Which nation was it?

I have no idea. God alone can say.

1583. Is every individual soldier bound to satisfy himself as to the justice of his side before participating in war?

Catholic theologians say that volunteers must satisfy themselves that the cause is not unjust. Conscript soldiers are not obliged to solve the problem, but may obey orders, unless the war be clearly and obviously unjust. In this latter case they would be obliged in conscience to refuse service.

1584. I am not satisfied yet that killing can be lawful. You say that the official hangman of the state is not guilty of sin. What of the one who authorizes his action?

If the hangman be commissioned by lawful state authority, he is free from guilt. The lawfully appointed authority who sentences to death is free from guilt provided he rectifies his intention and has a good motive; provided the crime be a grave one; provided civil law has decreed death as a proportionate penalty; and finally, provided the judge, acting in his official capacity, has sufficient evidence to prove that the criminal was indeed guilty of the crime, having sufficient use of his faculties to be morally responsible for it.

1585. You oppose sterilization of the mentally deficient for the common good, yet you justify the taking of the criminals very life?

There is all the difference in the world between these two things. Where sterilization of the unfit is in question, many other factors come into the case besides the common good. The state has no direct right over the life and members of its subjects. It has an indirect right to sentence to death as a punishment for grave crimes. But sterilization of the mentally deficient is a measure directed against those lacking moral responsibility, and who are guilty of no crime in being mentally deficient through no fault of their own. Nor could we support sterilization of those who have been guilty of sex crimes, and who are not mentally deficient, for sterilization is not proportionate as a punishment; and far from being a deterrent for the future, it leaves a man with all his passions and no fear of the consequences. Sterilization is useless both as a punitive measure and as a reformative measure; and it is not justifiable even where the death penalty is.

1586. After all you have said about the lawfulness of killing and of war, the crux seems to be as to who is to decide the justice of any particular war. What authority is entitled to declare a war just or unjust?

The nations at present acknowledge no independent authority whose decision they would accept. The only suitable authority I know of in this world is the Pope, who is above all national considerations. The Pope has all the necessary qualifications, but the nations will not entitle him to decide. They make themselves judges in their own case, despite their experience of the consequences.

1587. We do not have to appeal to the Pope. We have the League of Nations.

That does not really escape the difficulty. In the League of Nations we have representatives of the very nations concerned. Both the cause and the power behind each individual representative is the cause and the power of the nation he represents. There are forty million people in the representative of a country with that population, and perhaps but five million in the representative of some smaller country. G.K. Chesterton has rightly pointed out that any international council is necessarily but a reduced model of the nations represented in it. "Suppose," he writes, "that in the international interchanges of the future some power, say Sweden, is felt to be disproportionate or problematical. If Sweden is powerful in Europe, she will be powerful in the Council of Europe. If Sweden is too powerful in Europe, she will be too powerful in the Council of Europe. And because she is the very thing that is irresistible, she is the very thing to be resisted; or at any rate to be restrained. I do not see how Europe can ever escape from that logical dilemma, except by discovering again an authority that is purely moral and is the recognized custodian of a morality." The Pope is the only one in this world who could possibly become such an accepted authority.

1588. Would you please tell me what steps I must take in order to join the Catholic Church?

By all means. Call at the nearest Catholic Rectory in your suburb or district, ask to see the Priest, and tell him that you would like to receive instruction in the Catholic Faith. He will arrange for your instruction, and if, after having had the Catholic religion fully explained to you, you still desire to become a Catholic, he will gladly receive you into the Church.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0

TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: catholic; justwar; radiorepliesvolone

Preface To Volume One of "Radio Replies"



Bp FULTON J. SHEEN There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics "adore statues"; because they "put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God"; because they say "indulgence is a permission to commit sin"; because the Pope "is a Fascist"; because the "Church is the defender of Capitalism." If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine.

If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown. Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great "potentials," for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend? The answer depends upon those who have the faith. Like the multitudes who followed Our Lord into the desert, they are as sheep without a shepherd. They are waiting to be shepherded either with the sheep or goats. Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ.

It is to these millions who believe wrong things about the Church and to these marginal Christians, that this little book is sent. It is not to prove that they are "wrong"; it is not to prove that we are "right"; it is merely to present the truth in order that the truth may conquer through the grace of God. When men are starving, one need not go to them and tell them to avoid poison; nor to eat bread because there are vitamins in bread. One need only go to them and tell them that they are starving and here is bread, and the laws of nature will do the rest. This book of "Radio Replies" with 1,588 questions and answers goes out on a similar mission. Its primary task is not to humble the erroneous; not to glorify the Catholic Church as intellectual and self-righteous, but to present the truth in a calm, clear manner in order that with the grace of God souls may come to the blessed embrace of Christ.

It is not only the point of "Radio Replies" to prove that the Church is the only completely soul-satisfying Church in existence at the present day; it is also to suggest that the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many minds miss its obviousness. When therefore you, the readers of "Radio Replies" in the twentieth century, wish to know about Christ and about His early Church, and about His mysteries, we ask you to go not only to the written records but to the living Church which began with Christ Himself. That Church or that Mystical Person which has been living all these centuries is the basis of our faith and to us Catholics it speaks this way: "I live with Christ. I saw His Mother and I know her to be a Virgin and the loveliest and purest of all women in heaven or on earth; I saw Christ at Caesarea-Philippi, when, after changing Simon's name to Rock, He told him he was the rock upon which the Church would be built and that it would endure unto the consummation of the world. I saw Christ hanging on a cross and I saw Him rise from His tomb; I saw Magdalene rush to His feet; I saw the angels clad in white beside the great stone; I was in the Cenacle room when doubting Thomas put fingers into His hands; I was on Olivet when He ascended into heaven and promised to send His Spirit to the apostles to make them the foundation of His new Mystical Body on earth. I was at the stoning of Stephen, saw Saul hold the garments of those who slew him, and later I heard Saul, as Paul, preach Christ and Him crucified; I witnessed the beheading of Peter and Paul in Rome, and with my very eyes saw tens of thousands of martyrs crimson the sands with their blood, rather than deny the faith Peter and Paul had preached unto them; I was living when Boniface was sent to Germany, when Augustine when to England, Cyril and Methodius to the Poles, and Patrick to Ireland; at the beginning of the ninth century I recall seeing Charlemagne crowned as king in matters temporal as Peter's vicar was recognized as supreme in matters spiritual; in the thirteenth century I saw the great stones cry out in tribute to me, and burst into Gothic Cathedrals; in the shadows of those same walls I saw great Cathedrals of thought arise in the prose of Aquinas and Bonaventure, and in the poetry of Dante; in the sixteenth century I saw my children softened by the spirit of the world leave the Father's house and reform the faith instead of reforming discipline which would have brought them back again into my embrace; in the last century and at the beginning of this I heard the world say it could not accept me because I was behind the times. I am not behind the times, I am only behind the scenes. I have adapted myself to every form of government the world has ever known; I have lived with Caesars and kings, tyrants and dictators, parliaments and presidents, monarchies and republics. I have welcomed every advance of science, and were it not for me the great records of the pagan world would not have been preserved. It is true I have not changed my doctrine, but that is because the ‘doctrine is not mine but His who sent Me.’ I change my garments which belong to time, but not my Spirit which belongs to eternity. In the course of my long life I have seen so many modern ideas become unmodern, that I know I shall live to chant a requiem over the modern ideas of this day, as I chanted it over the modern ideas of the last century. I celebrated the nineteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of my Redeemer and yet I am no older now than then, for my Spirit is Eternal, and the Eternal never ages. I am the abiding Personage of the centuries. I am the contemporary of all civilizations. I am never out of date, because the dateless; never out of time, because the timeless. I have four great marks: I am One, because I have the same Soul I had in the beginning; I am Holy, because that Soul is the Spirit of Holiness; I am Catholic, because that Spirit pervades every living cell of my Body; I am Apostolic, because my origin is identical with Nazareth, Galilee and Jerusalem. I shall grow weak when my members become rich and cease to pray, but I shall never die. I shall be persecuted as I am persecuted now in Mexico and Russia; I shall be crucified as I was on Calvary, but I shall rise again, and finally when time shall be no more, and I shall have grown to my full stature, then shall I be taken into heaven as the bride of my Head, Christ, where the celestial nuptials shall be celebrated, and God shall be all in all, because His Spirit is Love and Love is Heaven."





Introduction To The American Edition Of "Radio Replies"


"Radio Replies" by Rev. Dr. Rumble, M.S.C., is the result of five years of answering questions during a one-hour Question Box Program over Radio Station 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. The revision of "Radio Replies" for American readers was prompted by the widespread interest the Australian edition created among Protestants and Catholics during the summer of 1937, when I was carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on Catholicism "Radio Replies" proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. The clergy and laymen engaged in Street Preaching agree that it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners but what you GET INTO THEIR HANDS TO READ.

My many converts of the highways and parks throughout the Archdiocese of St. Paul have embraced the faith as a result of studying this book. Whole families have come into the Church through reading the book by this renowned convert from Anglicanism. The delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe led me to petition the author to have published a CHEAP AMERICAN EDITION in order to get this Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine into the hands of fellow citizens. Because of the author's genius for brevity, preciseness, fearlessness and keen logic that avoids the usually long Scriptural and Traditional arguments of the average question and answer book, which is beyond the capacity of the man in the street, this manual of 1,588 questions and replies has already attracted readers throughout Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India, England, Ireland, Canada and now the United States.

The questions he answers are the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign. The piquant and provocative subject matter of this book makes it a fascinating assembly of 300 or more worth-while pamphlet tracts, a dictionary of doctrine for the desk of the FAMILY, the STUDENT, the SHOP HAND, the OFFICE WORKER, the ATTORNEY, the DOCTOR, the TEACHER, and the PREACHER. It is a handy standard reference book of excellence for popular questions which are more than ever being asked by restless and bewildered multitudes. It is a textbook for the Confraternities of Christian Doctrine Classes and Study Clubs.

A non-Catholic Professor after reading the book stated that, "If the Catholic Church could defend herself so logically as 'Radio Replies' demonstrates, then I do not see why you don't get more converts." Members of the Knights of Columbus, the Holy Name Societies and numerous women's societies have written in that they no longer have to apologetically say, "I can't answer that one." Catholic students in non-sectarian colleges and universities write in that they now walk the campus with this book under their arms, ready for all challenges and that this manual of ready reference has cured their INFERIORITY COMPLEX ON EXPOSITION OF CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Lapsed Catholics have come into my trailer-office to confess that the reading of "Radio Replies" has brought them back to the Church.

I am grateful to His Excellency Archbishop John G. Murray, D.D. for his approval of this compendium of dogmatic and moral theology for readers of the American Commonwealth and I am deeply appreciative to Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D. for writing the Preface to this American edition.

From my experience on the Catholic Radio Hour, on the lecture platform, and in the pulpit, I do not hesitate to say that HERE AT LAST is the book that has something for everybody, the book for the UNINFORMED CATHOLIC, THE UNEDUCATED AND EDUCATED LAPSED CATHOLIC, and the PROSPECTIVE CONVERT.

Rev. Charles MortimerCarty




 Who is like unto God?........ Lk:10:18:
 And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.


Historical Context of "Radio Replies"

By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.

1 posted on 12/04/2009 9:22:47 PM PST by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; ...
 Radio Replies

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”


2 posted on 12/04/2009 9:23:56 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume One: God’s Existence Known by Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of God
Radio Replies Volume One: Providence of God and Problem of Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Man & Existence and Nature of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Immortality of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Destiny of the Soul & Freewill of Man

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Religion & Necessity of Religion

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Natural Religion & Revealed Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Mysteries of Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Miracles
Radio Replies Volume One: Value of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Gospels

Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 1]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 2]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 3]
Radio Replies Volume One: New Testament Difficulties

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: The Religion of the Jews
Radio Replies Volume One: Truth of Christianity
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature and Necessity of Faith

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: Conflicting Churches
Radio Replies Volume One: Are All One Church?
Radio Replies Volume One: Is One Religion As Good As Another?
Radio Replies Volume One: The Fallacy of Indifference

Chapter Seven: The Failure of Protestantism

Radio Replies Volume One: Protestantism Erroneous
Radio Replies Volume One: Luther
Radio Replies Volume One: Anglicanism
Radio Replies Volume One: Greek Orthodox Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Wesley

Radio Replies Volume One: Baptists
Radio Replies Volume One: Adventists
Radio Replies Volume One: Salvation Army
Radio Replies Volume One: Witnesses of Jehovah
Radio Replies Volume One: Christian Science

Radio Replies Volume One: Theosophy
Radio Replies Volume One: Spiritualism
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholic Intolerance

Chapter Eight: The Truth of Catholicism

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The true Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Hierarchy of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The Pope
Radio Replies Volume One: Temporal Power

Radio Replies Volume One: Infallibility
Radio Replies Volume One: Unity
Radio Replies Volume One: Holiness
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholicity
Radio Replies Volume One: Apostolicity

Radio Replies Volume One: Indefectibility
Radio Replies Volume One: "Outside the Church no salvation"

Chapter Nine: The Catholic Church and the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Not opposed to the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: The reading of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestants and the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: "Bible Only" a false principle
Radio Replies Volume One: The necessity of Tradition
Radio Replies Volume One: The authority of the Catholic Church

Chapter Ten: The Church and Her Dogmas

Radio Replies Volume One: Dogmatic Truth
Radio Replies Volume One: Development of Dogma
Radio Replies Volume One: Dogma and Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Rationalism
Radio Replies Volume One: The Holy Trinity

Radio Replies Volume One: Creation
Radio Replies Volume One: Angels
Radio Replies Volume One: Devils
Radio Replies Volume One: Man
Radio Replies Volume One: Sin

Radio Replies Volume One: Christ
Radio Replies Volume One: Mary
Radio Replies Volume One: Grace and salvation
Radio Replies Volume One: The Sacraments
Radio Replies Volume One: Baptism

Radio Replies Volume One: Confirmation
Radio Replies Volume One: Confession
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Eucharist
Radio Replies Volume One: The Sacrifice of the Mass
Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Communion

Radio Replies Volume One: Priesthood
Radio Replies Volume One: Matrimony
Radio Replies Volume One: Divorce
Radio Replies Volume One: Extreme Unction
Radio Replies Volume One: Judgment

Radio Replies Volume One: The Millenium
Radio Replies Volume One: Hell
Radio Replies Volume One: Purgatory
Radio Replies Volume One: Prayer for the Dead
Radio Replies Volume One: Indulgences

Radio Replies Volume One: Heaven
Radio Replies Volume One: The Resurrection of the Body
Radio Replies Volume One: The General Judgment/The End of the World

Chapter Eleven: The Church in Her Moral Teachings

Radio Replies Volume One: Veracity/Mental Restriction
Radio Replies Volume One: Charity
Radio Replies Volume One: Ecclesiastical Censures/Liberty
Radio Replies Volume One: Index of Prohibited Books
Radio Replies Volume One: Persecution

Radio Replies Volume One: The Inquisition
Radio Replies Volume One: Jesuits/Catholic Intolerance
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestant services
Radio Replies Volume One: Freemasonry
Radio Replies Volume One: Cremation

Radio Replies Volume One: Gambling
Radio Replies Volume One: Prohibition of Drink
Radio Replies Volume One: Sunday Observance
Radio Replies Volume One: Fasting
Radio Replies Volume One: Celibacy

Radio Replies Volume One: Convent life
Radio Replies Volume One: Mixed Marriages
Radio Replies Volume One: Birth Control

Chapter Twelve: The Church in Her Worship

Radio Replies Volume One: Holy Water
Radio Replies Volume One: Genuflection/Sign of the Cross
Radio Replies Volume One: Images
Radio Replies Volume One: Liturgical Ceremonial
Radio Replies Volume One: Spiritual Healing

Radio Replies Volume One: The use of Latin
Radio Replies Volume One: Devotion to Mary
Radio Replies Volume One: Rosary
Radio Replies Volume One: The Angelus/Devotion to the Saints
Radio Replies Volume One: The Worship of Relics

Chapter Thirteen: The Church and Social Welfare

Radio Replies Volume One: Poverty of Catholics
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholic and Protestant Countries
Radio Replies Volume One: The Church and Education
Radio Replies Volume One: The Social Problem
Radio Replies Volume One: The Church and Capitalism

Radio Replies Volume One: The Church and the Worker
Radio Replies Volume One: Socialism
Radio Replies Volume One: Communism
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholics and the Labor Party
Radio Replies Volume One: Douglas Credit

Radio Replies Volume One: The Catholic Attitude to War

3 posted on 12/04/2009 9:25:33 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Related: Just War According to Catholic Teaching
4 posted on 12/06/2009 12:02:10 PM PST by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson