Separation Of Sanity And State

 Recently, the newest member of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was attacked on the left-wing website Slate.com. A highly qualified jurist, Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Highest Court by a mere two-vote margin last year (50-48). The author of the article, Mark Joseph Stern, wasn't castigating him for the alleged rape of Christine Blasey Ford--the accusatory fiasco during his confirmation hearings when the left pleaded for us to "Believe Women." (I always thought we were supposed to believe evidence, of which Ford had none). Writer Stern in his article entitled Brett Kavanaugh Shows How Eager He Is to Tear Down the Wall Between Church and State, tells us that Kavanaugh wants to "...[rewrite] the First Amendment by creating a constitutional right to taxpayer-subsidized religion." (See the full article here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/kavanaugh-separation-church-state-morris-county.html).

 The United States was founded on the Masonic principle of separation of Church and State. The left is having fits because Justice Kavanaugh thinks it's OK for the government's historic preservation funds to be used to restore old churches. If this happens, Stern and his ilk believe we're on our way to becoming a theocracy. The article does bring to the fore some interesting questions: What is the proper relationship between Church and State? Can we have a purely secular State? Is it OK to fund all religions? This post will demonstrate traditional Church teaching on Religious Tolerance, and contrast it with the damnable and heretical teaching of Religious Liberty taught by Vatican II which has devastated the modern world.  

The Teaching of the Church

 The Church teaches that people are only free to choose that which is good and to believe what is objectively true. Many people, nevertheless, do make evil/wrong choices and embrace false religions. Society can never praise, encourage, or support such decisions. It can, however, tolerate these individual abuses of liberty in order to maintain temporal peace while encouraging the adherents of false religions to understand the errors of their ways and convert to the One True Church. 

The pronouncements of the popes are clear:

Pope Gregory XVI: "...We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained...This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. (See Mirari Vos, para. #13 & 14; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius IX: CONDEMNED PROPOSITION # 15: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true (See The Syllabus of Errors).

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #77: 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 (Ibid).

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #78: Hence 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 (Ibid)

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #79:  Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism (Ibid)

Pope Leo XIII: The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief. (See Immortale Dei, para. #25; Emphasis mine).

Pope St. Pius X: That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious form of worship, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (See Vehementer Nos, para. #3; Emphasis mine).

All of the above is well summarized by theologian Cahill: "The Church and State recognize each others prerogatives. The State while allowing freedom of conscience and thus tolerating such non-Catholic religions as may exist within its territory, itself publicly professes the Catholic Faith. It recognizes also the higher importance of the Church's functions and engages to fulfill its own part in the union [between itself and the Church] according to Christian principles...This system existed over all Europe before the 16th century. It is...the system which exists at present in Italy, Spain...Belgium, Poland, as well as the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador, and practically in Columbia. [Union of Church and State is] the system most in accord with Divine Law; and the nearer the actual arrangements approach it the betterfor the spiritual interests of the people and for their peace and well-being even in temporal matters." (See The Framework of a Christian State, [1932], pgs. 610-611; Emphasis mine). 

Thus:

1. There is but One True Church of Christ which is for the eternal salvation of humanity.

2. Every State should be a Catholic State because error has no rights. Only that which is true and good has a right to exist. Only within the Catholic Church can salvation be found, so the public good demands that only She be recognized and promoted.

3. No one should ever be forced to accept the True Faith. Christ wants us to come to Him freely.

4. In private, people may profess error, but not publicly. The State should profess the Catholic Faith, and only Her True worship of God (and Her moral teaching) should be permitted in public. To do otherwise is to put falsehood on par with the Truth and lead souls to Hell when people are exposed to false religions. Just as those who are highly contagious with a deadly disease are quarantined to protect the people from exposure, so too with false doctrine and morals, which can infect and destroy the soul which is infinitely more valuable than the body.

5. In countries where there is no Catholic majority, the members of the Church have a duty to try and convert as many to the Faith, so as to one day effectuate a Catholic State. 

Enter Fr. John Courtney Murray

Fr. John Courtney Murray was born in 1904 in New York City. He entered the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1920, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1933. He earned a Doctorate in Sacred Theology at the Gregorian University in Rome in 1937. He returned to the United States where he taught theology, and in 1941, was named editor of the Jesuit journal Theological Studies. At first, Murray was orthodox, but he soon became a dedicated Modernist.

Eventually, Murray began to advocate religious freedom as defined and protected by the Masonic First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and he eventually argued that Catholic teaching on Church/State relations no longer served contemporary society. Murray began promoting his ideas in theological journals, where he met with heavy criticism from some bishops and many fellow theologians, most notably the eminent Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was strongly anti-Modernist. Theologian Fenton was Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Catholic University of America and was the editor of the influential American Ecclesiastical Review. Fenton attacked Murray's teachings as being irreconcilable with Church teaching (most notably Pope Leo XIII) on Church-State relations.

Murray taught that the West had developed the "fullness of truth" (sound familiar?) on "human dignity." This alleged "truth" demanded that people be given "moral control" over their own beliefs in religious liberty. In 1954, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office censured his teachings, demanding that he stop all writing and teaching on the topic of religious liberty. Even when censured, Murray continued to write privately on religious liberty and submitted his works to Rome, all of which were condemned.

In 1963, he was rehabilitated under Roncalli, and was brought to Vatican II as a peritus (theological expert) so that his condemned doctrines could be accepted. While at the Council, he became a friend of Archbishop Karol Wojtyla--the future "Pope" John Paul II. Murray drafted the heretical Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae which officially adopted heretical religious liberty as the doctrine of the newly founded Vatican II sect. After the Council, he taught that Catholics who "arrived at new truths(!)" about God would have to do so in conversation "on a footing of equality" with non-Catholics and atheists. He suggested greater reforms, including a restructuring of the Church, to become "less authoritarian" and more "democratic." (See https://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/Murray/bio). He died of a heart attack in 1967, less than two years after Vatican II ended.

"Dignitatis Humanae:" Bringing Masonic Principles to the World

  At the heart of the problem lies a dangerous, false, and heretical notion of "human dignity." Murray and his fellow Modernists believe "truths" can be discovered "more fully." This implies that if religious toleration was evil or not sufficient because of "human dignity," it was always wrong and could not "become wrong." People have not "developed more human dignity." Human beings were, from the very beginning, made in the image and likeness of God. It doesn't become "more true" or "less true" with the passage of time. It is an implicit denial of the Indefectibility of the Church; the Church was somehow "deficient" in not teaching the "full truth" or gave something evil. However, this is impossible. This exact "human dignity" argument is being pushed by Bergoglio in his rejection of capital punishment. 

Dignitatis Humanae (hereinafter "DH") states in paragraph #2: 

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

This plainly flies in the face of all that was taught prior to the Council, and only one devoid of reason could say otherwise. DH teaches that the right to religious liberty, founded on the "dignity of the human person," persists even if the person misuses his right to religious liberty and denies the One True Church. Human dignity replaces God as the measure of what is good. Humans become "god."

DH para. #6: The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government. Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means.

Vatican II teaches here that all religions must enjoy the right to religious liberty. Implicitly, the prime value to be defended in human society is no longer the Truth, but liberty.

DH para. #7: ...that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

This is an implicit denial of Original Sin. Give people religious liberty, and their minds and morals will be corrupted, as Pope Pius IX taught. Vatican II assumes the opposite--all will be well with religious liberty. The propagation of error is no longer considered a sin against the common good. This is the subversion of the common good and the subversion of true morality.

DH para. #11: God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom.

Really? Immorality and heresy are to be "enjoyed" as "freedom"? When people are damned as a result of the misuse of freedom, enjoyment will be gone forever in Hell.

The Effects of Religious Liberty

In once Catholic Europe, countries such as Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, Ireland, and Portugal no longer have to adhere to Catholic morals. As a result, they have legalized sodomite "marriage," abortion, contraception, and euthanasia. The Vatican II sect considers proselytism as "solemn nonsense." False sects (especially Islam) are growing in leaps and bounds. Nevertheless, should anyone wants to see the effects of religious liberty in the extreme, look no further than the United States. 

Besides all the immorality and growth of sects listed above, a hatred for God in general and Christianity in particular, is evident. The following are just a few examples of religious liberty at work. The acts below were considered "unconstitutional" by the courts. I have printed only the name and year of the case and left out the citation for brevity.

• It is unconstitutional for a public cemetery to have a planter in the shape of a cross because someone might see it and experience "emotional distress"(Warsaw v. Tehachapi, 1990)

• It is unconstitutional for students to see the Ten Commandments in public schools since they might meditate upon them, obey them, or respect them (Stone v. Graham, 1980)

• It is unconstitutional for a Nativity scene to be displayed on public property unless surrounded by sufficient secular displays in order to not appear religious (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 1989) This rule does not apply to a menorah

The Return of the Pagan Temple in Rome

This past Saturday, March 9, 2019, Bergoglio met with Russell M. Nelson, President of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" commonly called the "Mormons." Francis was there to greet him and "celebrate" the opening, on the First Sunday of Lent, of a Mormon Temple in Rome. Following the 33-minute meeting, President Nelson and President Ballard met with members of the media. "We had a most cordial, unforgettable experience. His Holiness, he was most gracious and warm and welcoming," said President Nelson. He continued, "What a sweet, wonderful man he is, and how fortunate the Catholic people are to have such a gracious, concerned, loving and capable leader." (See https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/prophet-meets-pope-francis-vatican). 

Here are the disturbing facts about the Mormons:

• They are polytheistic. Mormons believe that the Trinity consists not of three persons in one God but rather of three distinct gods. According to Mormonism, there are potentially many thousands of gods besides these

• Mormons believe that humans, like God the Father, can go through a process of exaltation to godhood

• Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the firstborn spirit-child of the heavenly Father and a heavenly Mother. Jesus then progressed to deity in the spirit world. He was later physically conceived in Mary’s womb, as the literal "only begotten" Son of God the Father in the flesh. Christ was conceived naturally between God the Father and Mary--rank blasphemy of the highest order

• Jesus is brother to Lucifer and had at least three wives

• Joseph Smith, who founded this cult in New York State during the 19th century, was a bigamist, liar, fraud, and Freemason

• Most of the ceremonies in their wicked temple are based on the rites of the Masonic temple

• Smith was involved in many occult practices, including "money digging." This involved special rituals and ceremonies which were performed for the purpose of obtaining buried treasure thought to be guarded by evil spirits

• Smith considered the U.S. Constitution to be "divinely inspired" just like the Bible, and taught that when God established His Kingdom, it would be multi-denominational and democratic.

• The president of the sect is considered to be a living prophet and successor of Smith, and whatever he says is a "new revelation" from God the Father

(See Journal of Discourses, in 26 volumes, compiled by F.D. Richards, 1885-1886; See also Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, 1981; Mormonism, Kurt Van Gorden, 1995). 

The pagans are back, and this would be unthinkable even 30 years ago. The "new springtime" of Vatican II and religious liberty. The "prophet" Nelson said, "We talked about our mutual concern for the people who suffer throughout the world and want to relieve human suffering. We talked about the importance of religious liberty, the importance of the family, our mutual concern for the youth [and] for the secularization of the world and the need for people to come to God and worship Him, pray to Him and have the stability that faith in Jesus Christ will bring in their lives." (See link cited above; Emphasis mine).

What "God" does Nelson want people to worship, and in what "Jesus Christ" do they place their trust; the one whose brother is Lucifer? Notice that Bergoglio, the false pope, cares naught for their beliefs. Whatever you believe is fine, as long as you care about human suffering in the present world and not the salvation of souls from eternal suffering in Hell. Bergoglio is a complete apostate, and Vatican II's religious liberty which he completely supports, will now permit the Mormons to convert the Italian people to polytheistic-Masonic paganism.

 Conclusion

 Francis and Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, a leading authority for many Sunni Muslims, signed a document on "human fraternity," and improving Christian-Moslem relations. (See https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/does-god-want-religious-diversity-abu-dhabi-text-raises-questions). "The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in his wisdom, through which he created human beings," the document said. Some have tried to defend this, including the Modernist Vatican, by claiming God wills false religions permissively (like other evils) and not positively. 

Don't be fooled. Read the context. Diversity of religion is listed with color, sex, language, and race. God positively wills male and female, as well as different colors, races, and languages. Yet we are to believe that religion was meant to be understood differently than the others in the same sentence? That God would positively will false sects with their false morals is the logical conclusion of religious liberty. The Vatican II sect has given power to the false sects of the world, especially Islam. That declaration means nothing to them, as they continue to multiply while the Vatican II sect uses contraception on grounds of "conscience." Moslems (like Mormons) aggressively proselytize, while Bergoglio proclaims converting others as "solemn nonsense."  There are plenty of Moslem countries, but not one truly Catholic State left. Don't be surprised if in the near future we witness the Grand Imam of the Islamic Republic of Italy issuing fatwas from the erstwhile St. Peter's Basilica. 

No wonder Pope Gregory XVI once called religious liberty "insanity."