29 July 2015

Words Have Consequences, and Logic Exists

Well, that used to be true.  This excellent story at The Remnant is a reminder of the title of this post.  

Well-meaning neo-Catholics, seeking (as is right) a refuge from governmental persecution on account of their Catholicism, have been using a campaign of "Religious Liberty" as the mechanism.  You see these campaigns from chanceries and pulpits, and not just from the usual platform of imbecility that is Patheos.

I have never been on-board with this approach because, specifically, there is no right to religious error, and the state has a duty and right to uphold the Catholic faith.  It is irrelevant that no state does this.  Giving in on terminology is inevitably a losing game.

Enter the satanist statue in Detroit.  I will spare you the uber-creepy photo.  Michael Voris, and others, are really upset by it.  Great.  Unfortunately, their own words and positions undercut them.  As Chris Jackson devastatingly explains, the neo-Catholics, if they wish to be true to their understanding of Vatican II, should be celebrating this event.  A must read.  Might make you uncomfortable.

Christ the King, have mercy on us!


The Bear said...

The Bear agrees. "Religious Liberty" has never floated his banner. Oh goodie, we're claiming the same credibility as Mormons.

Jane Chantal said...

I've never been adept at thinking outside the box, which is why it took me a ridiculously long time to realize that I ought to become a Catholic :-). I frequently find I'm not connecting dots as they ought to be connected...but it strikes me as very wrong-headed to say that those who are pursuing the freedom of religion angle should, logically, CELEBRATE that fact that statues to Satanic deities/whatevers are being publicly erected. Isn't that like saying that people who appreciate the right to bear arms should, logically, CELEBRATE when some nut job commits mayhem with a gun?

When the last Catholic King of England, James II, issued his Declaration of Indulgence (aka Declaration of Liberty of Conscience) in 1687, he was attempting -- with what to me seems astonishing boldness and courage -- to release England's Catholics, non-Anglican Protestants, and non-Christians from fear of persecution. The attempt panicked the Anglican establishment and was quickly squashed by it. Did it deserve to be squashed?

I dunno. Given that an overnight conversion of the U.S. into a nation of faithful Catholics is probably not happening, should we just keep grumbling, or is there value in defending a principle that at least affords us an opportunity to continue to try openly to influence the hearts and minds of people who are outside the Church? Martyrdom will indeed probably come, and martyrdom has a very powerful effect on hearts and minds -- but are things at a point where we ought to leave the public square and go directly to the Colosseum?

I'm probably overreacting to the tone of Jackson's piece -- yet somehow its content also seems, as I said, wrong-headed. If I'm missing something obvious, it won't be for the first time :-).