RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
by Rebecca A. Sexton
Former Catholics For Christ
Anyone who opposes Roman Catholicism is immediately labeled as a bigot, intolerant of other religions or a hate-monger. These false accusations are slung by a system whose own fetters of intolerance and bigotry has choked out the freest of nations. When we talk of freedom, we mean the self-government of the people, by the people, for the people in all civil affairs. When we talk of liberty of conscience, we mean that every man shall be permitted to worship God as his own personal convictions dictate. But when Catholicism speaks of freedom, she means the freedom of the papacy to govern the world through the pope and his agents, under the guise of an unscriptural unity. Pope Pius IX states that he has "...full power over the whole world, both in ecclesiastical and civil affairs", and to not accept this is impious and heretical. When Catholicism speaks of liberty of conscience she means "the right to embrace, profess and practice the Catholic religion."
The first Amendment reads:
- "Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble."
What a sharp contrast there is between our constitution and Pope Leo XIII (1903) in Libertas:
- "It is not lawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought or speech, or writing, or religion, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man."
These two statements side by side puts American Catholics in the dilemma of holding two conflicting ideologies simultaneously (in the book 1984 by George Orwell this is labeled "double think").
In
Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Peter De Rosa, on pages 150-151, recognizes this dilemma:
- "In the state (US), a Catholic rejoices in openness, complete freedom of worship, democracy. He takes it for granted that freedom leads to a deepening of the truth. He is used to his leaders having to present themselves for his approval. He can vote them in; he can vote them out. He demands press conferences, freedom of information, an unfettered press that is like a second government. In the church, a Catholic has to put up with total secrecy and lack of accountability. There are no choices, no elections. No bishop or pope is, as far as he is concerned, voted in or out. He has to accept what he is given. In the church, there are no press conferences, no checks and balances, no explanations. The control from the top is absolute ["Absolute power corrupts absolutely"]. The impression given is that freedom and discussion lead to the dilution of truth."
Pope John Paul II parades around the world as a champion of freedom and truth for everyone, that is everyone except those in his own Romish system. Theologians such as Kung and Curran are silenced and their work suppressed because they dared to challenge Rome’s doctrine. Hans Kung, a Catholic theologian and professor of history denied the doctrine of infallibility on the grounds that history proved otherwise. If this man had some historical evidence, would it not be fair to all the people to openly deal with those historical facts rather than coming to the conclusion that the pope is infallible because he said so? When it comes to impartiality and fairness in all such matters, the advantage is on the side of the Protestant. He appeals to reason (Isaiah 1:18) and examines history for himself and is not afraid to weigh both sides of an argument, exercising his own intelligent judgment in separating right from wrong (Hebrews 5:13-14), truth from falsehood. But the Catholic is not to employ their individual reason or judgment to examine for themselves, but are to be content to accept whatsoever is announced by ecclesiastical "authority". They are told that they cannot interpret scripture. We were on the internet and had joined the Catholic chat. We decided not to say anything personal, but only to quote scripture verses. Diane typed in 1 Timothy 4:1:
- "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."
The response we received was "That’s your interpretation, Di." They didn’t realize that Diane did not interpret anything. They responded as they were taught, unaware that they had actually interpreted I Timothy themselves by understanding that this scripture was rebuking Catholicism for forbidding them to eat meat and forbidding priests to marry, as doctrines of devils. A little conviction maybe? Needless to say, we were banned for quoting scriptures on the Catholic chat. They claim they are for religious freedom, but only as long as it doesn’t interfere with their unscriptural concepts. But isn’t that what freedom is about? The freedom to disagree? If you go to the Bible 1611 chat room, they will discuss anything openly and honestly, even criticism against themselves and are not afraid to answer for the faith they hold. What a difference in spirit! Poor education has left its mark on our society leaving most Americans unaware of Rome’s continuing agenda to make the people a mere tool of a demanding hierarchy, "an imperious whorish woman" (Ezekiel 16:30), whose professions of moderation and liberty are deluding and insincere. It has rightly been said:
- "Rome in the minority is a lamb. Rome as an equal is a fox. Rome in the majority is a tiger."
Here in Protestant America the Roman Catholic church has the same freedoms as every other church, making her an equal. Therefore she must be clever as a fox. She will use American soil to build her church yet desires to lay the foundation to destroy the religious liberty that afforded her that very right. When the facts of history are examined Protestants stand forth clearly not as bigots, but rather as the real champions of religious and political liberty. It was Protestants who founded a nation built on biblical principles. "...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3: 17). On the other hand, Catholicism has maintained a tyrannical, suppressive government to the point of putting to death anyone who dared to disagree with her. Let’s take a look at some of the thoughts on religious freedom that have been expressed by different Catholic writers throughout history, writers, may I add, that Catholicism has sanctioned. One such man is "St." Thomas Aquinas who states in his Summa Theologica, Vol.IV, page 90:
- "Though heretics must not be tolerated because they deserve it, we must bear with them, till, by a second admonition, they may be brought back to the faith of the church. But those who, after a second admonition, remain obstinate in their errors, must not only be excommunicated, but they must be delivered to the secular power to be exterminated."
And again:
- "So far as heretics are concerned, heresy is a sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death" (Vol. II, 154).
In the official Jesuit organ, Civilta Cattolica, published in Rome in April of 1948 we read:
- "The Roman Catholic Church, convinced through its divine prerogatives, of being the only true church, must demand the right of freedom for herself alone, because such a right can only be possessed by truth, never by error. As for other religions, the Church will certainly never draw the sword [although she has forced the civil arm to do so], but she will require that by legitimate means they shall NOT BE ALLOWED TO PROPAGATE FALSE DOCTRINE. Consequently, in a state where the majority of people are Catholic, the Church will require that legal existence be denied to error, and that if religious minorities actually exist, they shall have only a de facto existence without opportunity to spread their beliefs...In some countries Catholics will be obliged to ask full religious freedom for all, resigned at being forced to cohabit where they alone should rightfully be allowed to live. But in doing this the Church does not renounce her thesis which remains the most imperative of her laws, but merely adapts herself to de facto conditions which must be taken into account in practical affairs...The Church cannot blush for her own want of tolerance as she asserts it in principle and applies it in practice." (Emphasis mine)
We receive many letters from Catholics who insist that what we write is hate mail. One writer (V.K. of Bowling Green) writes, "I see Pat Robertson and Robert Sungenis are soundly reproving FCFC. Evidently Protestantism and Catholicism are united in disapproval of anti-Catholic ministries". This is quite disturbing, to think that our "Christian brothers" are joining with the Whore of Babylon to take away our freedom to speak what our conscience dictates. This is nothing short of a subtle inquisition. For the sake of "unity" should we forfeit our rights of free press, free speech, the freedom to speak out against lies? Why would Pat Robertson join with Catholicism to put an end to abortion, yet he will not stand against their idolatry or blasphemy? Sin is sin, whether it be physical murder, or spiritual murder. Will we eventually be persecuted like those who live in Catholic controlled countries such as Brazil, Latin America, the Philippines and Mexico? Remember, it was as recent as Feb.20, 1994 that the Denver Post reported that:
- "An estimated 15,000 people have been expelled, sometimes at the point of a gun, from their homes and lands because of the religion they practice...The ‘expulsados’ are evangelicals and other protestants...who were thrown out of their communities by local authorities who are Catholics."
This is happening now in Mexico; as we stated in our previous issues, "one woman’s house was torched and she was shot in the face with a shotgun when she tried to rescue her children. She escaped through a corn field to another Christian’s house who took her three hours on foot to a hospital. Her children were found later either dead in the fire or mutilated by machete blows. When she recovered, she was forced to join a slum camp with thousands of other Christians whose homes had also been confiscated by their Roman Catholic attackers." Is this what Catholicism calls "freedom"? Here’s how Rome really feels about freedom of worship regardless of the "make them feel good" speeches by the Pope.
- "Heretics may be not only excommunicated, but also justly put to death" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, 768).
"Protestantism of every form has not, and never can have, any rights where Catholicity is triumphant" (Bronson’s Review).
"Non-Catholic's methods of worshipping God must be branded counterfeit" (Living Our Faith, Flynn, Loretto, and Simon, a widely used high school textbook, 247).
"In themselves all forms of Protestantism are unjustified. They should not exist" (America, January 4, 1941).
"The true (Roman Catholic) Church can tolerate no strange churches besides herself" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, 766).
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that every being should be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.XV, 126).
"No Catholic may positively and unconditionally approve of the separation of church and state" (Msgr. O’Toole, Catholic University of America, 1939).
"The pope is the supreme judge, even of civil laws, and is incapable of being under any true obligation to them" (Civilta Cattolica).
"Individual liberty in reality is only a deadly anarchy" (Pope Pius XII, April 6, 1951).
"Gregory XVI, in Mirari vos of August 1832, described liberty of conscience as a mad opinion. Religious liberty was said to flow from ‘the most fetid fount of indifferentism’. He condemned freedoms of worship, the press, assembly and education as a filthy sewer full of ‘heretical vomit’" (Vicars of Christ, Peter De Rosa, 146).
"In 1520, Leo X condemned Luther for daring to say that burning heretics is against the will of God. Gregory XIII commemorated with joy the Massacre of St. Bartholomew on the night of 24 August 1572 when thousands of Huguenot Protestants died. Clement VIII attacked the Edict of Nantes in 1598 because it gave equality of citizenship to all, regardless of their religion. The Edict was revoked in 1685 to the church’s delight: within three years, fifty thousand Protestant families left France, scattered further abroad, said Voltaire, than even the Jews. Innocent X had meanwhile condemned the Peace of Westphalia for daring to grant toleration to all citizens, regardless of their religion or lack of it. In every instance and over centuries, the Catholic church proudly proclaimed its dogma of religious intolerance" (Vicars of Christ, Peter De Rosa, 145).
"All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.14).
In case some of our readers are unfamiliar with the Syllabus of Errors, these are just a few of the beliefs that Catholics are "bound to accept":
- 15. "No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason." 17. "The eternal salvation of any out of the true church of Christ is not even to be hoped for." 24. "The Church has the power of employing force and (of exercising) direct and indirect temporal power." 42. "In legal conflict between Powers (Civil and Ecclesiastical) the Ecclesiastical Law prevails." 57. "Philosophical principles, moral science, and civil laws may and must be made to bend to divine and Ecclesiastical authority."
There is enough evidence from these quotes alone to prove that Catholicism does not tolerate religious freedom. How can a Catholic be bound by the Syllabus and yet be able to sign this ecumenical agreement? It is an obvious contradiction. Just listen to the agreement that Catholics and Evangelical Christians signed, #33, keeping in mind that their system precludes any unity with non-Catholics:
- "Religious freedom is itself grounded in and is a product of religious faith, as is evident in the history of Baptists and others in this country. Today we rejoice together that the Roman Catholic Church - as affirmed by the Second Vatican council and boldly exemplified in the ministry of John Paul II - is strongly committed to religious freedom and consequently, to the defense of all human rights..."
As I pointed out earlier, Pope John Paul II doesn’t allow freedom within his own church, so why should we trust that he is sincere when he cries for freedom for the world? And you will notice that the Pope’s signature is not on the ecumenical agreement signed by Pat Robertson, Chuck Colson, et al. Why not? Because he has no intentions of following such a document. Vatican II reaffirmed all the anathemas of Trent, but you don’t see that in their drawn-up document. They seem either unable or unwilling to understand how completely their freedom would be forfeited by a compliance with the requirements of this ecclesiastical system. Let me sum up the this article with a quote from Paul Blanshard:
- "The same pope who appoints every bishop and cardinal in the United States also appoints every bishop and cardinal in Spain. The same pope who permits American bishops to declare in the United States that they favor the separation of Church and State in this non-Catholic country encourages his Spanish bishops to pursue a directly opposite policy in Catholic Spain. It is the Vatican and the Franco government that jointly deny to all Protestant churches and Jewish synagogues those liberties which leaders of the church in the United States profess to believe in. Between them they have abolished both political and religious democracy by a union of church and state which is the pluperfect negation of American principles" (Pamphlet, Ecclesiastical Justice in Spain).
SUMMATION
Please do not be deceived into believing that the Roman Catholic Church has changed its stand on this issue of being the only true spiritual authority in the entire world. The Vatican is only pretending to be tolerant of religious exercise, until the time comes when she can safely and effectively rule supremely in matters, both temporal and spiritual.
Remember, also, that this Pope, John Paul II, who authorized this Concordat is the same Pope who reinstated the Office of the Defender of the Faith [the old Office of the Inquisition]. The only reason that he reinstated this office, after 150 years, is that he intends to use it again! In NEWS1052, "Seminar Notes: House of Theosophy", we report that the New World Order Plan calls for the Roman Catholic Pope to be the supreme spiritual leader of the New World Order Religion. This Plan places the Pope as the False Prophet of Revelation 13.
Do not be deceived. "Test the spirits", to see if they come from God, especially at this time, the End of the Age. Be wary, alert, and walk close to God.
Retrieved from
http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/RC112.htm
