tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post5008546315736496153..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: POPE FRANCIS SLAMS ISLAMIC STATES THAT DO NOT ALLOW FOR SECULARISM'S FREEDOM OF RELIGION--THESE END BAD!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-35999492243803686142016-05-24T15:23:27.785-04:002016-05-24T15:23:27.785-04:00(continued from previous post)
And then as long a...(continued from previous post)<br /><br />And then as long as the subject of religious liberty has been brought up, I discovered that that same topic has been brought up previously on here and commented on. I noticed a previous comment from about 3 years ago by someone who has apparently done a lot of research into the matter. I hope he won't mind me copying and pasting what they said:<br /><br /><i>Some claim Dignitatis Humanae conflicts with Quas Primas or Quanta Cura. Actually, there's no conflict. Quas Primas and Quanta Cura were against the Freemasonry idea of religious freedom. That's what the Church teaches against, always has, and always will. Dignitatis Humanae was against COMMUNIST dictatorships that FORCED their people to be godless.<br /><br />Do you remember the time of Dignitatis Humanae? Does the Soviet Empire tell you something? How about Catholic Poland, Catholic Lithuania under Communist slavery? Or millions of Christians in Ukraine, Vietnam, Cuba, Slovenia, etc. under Communism and official atheism?<br /><br />It is extremely easy: Quas Primas and Quanta Cura were against Freemasonry states; Dignitatis Humanae was against Communist slavery that forced their people to live without God.<br /><br />Actually, the Catechism of the Catholic Church harmonizes the teachings of Quas Primas, Quanta Cura, and Dignitatis Humanae very well:<br /><br />2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,(37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799) but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953).<br /><br />2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order" (cf Pius IX, enc. Quanta cura). <br /><br />So you see? There's no moral freedom to choose a religion. All is about a political freedom so Communist states do not impose anti-God teaching.<br /><br />"In order to be faithful to the divine command, "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern "that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, "first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men.... For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. (35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood" (Dignitatis Humanae).</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-49774535656624772572016-05-24T15:21:59.721-04:002016-05-24T15:21:59.721-04:00Jan, you cited the following quotes:
Pope Paul VI...Jan, you cited the following quotes:<br /><br /><b>Pope Paul VI: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)<br /><br />Pope Benedict - then Cardinal Ratzinger to Chilean Bishops:<br /><br />"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living<br />Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero.<br />The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately<br />chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat<br />it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the<br />importance of all the rest."</b><br /><br />Neither of those quotes prove your claim that Catholics are free to refuse any given part of Vatican II. All those quotes essentially say is that Vatican II was pastoral rather than dogmatic. And as for your first quote, you conveniently fail to cite the rest of it. After the phrase ". . . dogmas containing the mark of infallibility . . . " Paul VI goes on to say, " . . . but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents."<br /><br />So in a nutshelll, Vatican II taught via the ordinary universal Magisterium, which may or may not be infallible (I'm not well-versed in the nuances that dictate whether or not any given non-dogmatic teaching is infallible). But even if a given teaching weren't infallible and could perhaps be changed, we would still be required to accept it and give at the very least a religious submission of mind and will to it until or unless said teaching were changed, withdrawn, etc., would we not?<br /><br />Father McDonald, could you shed some light on that?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-79567408716901052292016-05-23T06:25:00.975-04:002016-05-23T06:25:00.975-04:00True liberal democracy does not exist anymore. True liberal democracy does not exist anymore. Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-75052548565246376612016-05-21T21:57:53.575-04:002016-05-21T21:57:53.575-04:00John:
I suspect that Pope Francis is playing ches...John:<br /><br />I suspect that Pope Francis is playing chess even though it may seem that he is playing tiddlywinks. His gaze is likely a long one that has regard to the total world situation, including (especially) challenges posed by the actual or potential imposition of Shari’a in Muslim majority countries and its potential imposition in Muslim minority countries such as those in the West. <br /><br />History, especially twentieth century history, teaches us about the horrors perpetrated by Godless regimes. It also teaches us that the marriage of political power and religion, including Christianity, often produces dangerous offspring that cause serious problems both in the domestic body politic and in its international relations with other polities. <br /><br />One of the great merits of liberal democracy is that it has defanged fanatical religion just as it has defanged fanatical nationalism and fanatical revolutionary ideology. One of its great demerits is that in doing so it has thrown out the baby with the bathwater (tragically in the case of abortion, literally so). The challenge is to find the via media, for which it is vital that liberal democracy guarantee that freedom of religion receives robust protection, that religious as well as secular voices be heard in the public square when the public interest and the common good are at stake, and that these voices are also able to seek to persuade regarding matters within the private sphere. <br /><br />At the end of the day, then, I am not sure that we disagree that much.<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-54441006611679719732016-05-21T17:19:49.308-04:002016-05-21T17:19:49.308-04:00Since at least the time of Pope Gelasius I in the ...Since at least the time of Pope Gelasius I in the fifth century, the Church has recognized that there is a separation of powers between Church and State, but has consistently condemned the total separation of Church and State. DH was always a controversial document, rushed through as the Council was about to close, but even here we read 'it leaves untouched (integram relinquit) the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ.'<br /><br />This doctrine was clearly restated by Leo XIII in the Encyclicals 'Immortale Dei' and 'Libertas'. The body politic, as a product of human nature, belongs to an ultimately God-given order and secular rulers have a duty to maintain true religion. The danger is of states legislating contrary to God's law and purpose and using their coercive power to override conscience and deny the Church her legitimate rights. <br /><br />The record of totalitarian 20th century regimes confirmed Leo's fears. In the 21st century we see liberal democracies which would confine religion to the private sphere and impose on society a secular morality based on relativism and perceived majority opinion (which they have unprecedented resources to manipulate). The Church's immutable Tradition is counter-cultural to an extent undreamed of in the 19th century or earlier.<br /><br />How much of this does Pope Francis actually understand? He seems to be saying that matters such as euthanasia and same-sex marriage are 'social' issues which the State has a right to decide on, even if by doing so it contravenes God's law and purpose, provided that it allows religious people freedom to disagree. This is simply wrong and betrays an astonishing ignorance of what the Church actually teaches. <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45905934481840500082016-05-21T08:31:20.228-04:002016-05-21T08:31:20.228-04:00Anonymous 3.40 am:
Pope Paul VI: “There are thos...Anonymous 3.40 am:<br /><br />Pope Paul VI: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)<br /><br />Pope Benedict - then Cardinal Ratzinger to Chilean Bishops:<br /><br />"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living<br />Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero.<br />The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately<br />chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat<br />it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the<br />importance of all the rest."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70789817106314460562016-05-21T08:04:14.287-04:002016-05-21T08:04:14.287-04:00Anonymous,
The Second Vatican Council sought: to ...Anonymous,<br /><br />The Second Vatican Council sought: to reaffirm the Council of Trent, to bring all Christians into the Catholic Church, to bring all non-Christians into Christianity, to teach the Western faithful their parts of the Mass in Latin, to retain Gregorian Chant as the primary music of the Western Church, to require clerics to recite the Divine Office in Latin, to prohibit any alteration by priests of the liturgical rites, to preserve church architecture and furnishings, to promote popular devotions, etc. But Paul VI and a great many bishops have reevaluated those directives and officially dismissed them. So, the precedent for reform of VCII is already set. Rood Screenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09816036539243214384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-73757222983695764972016-05-21T06:54:29.295-04:002016-05-21T06:54:29.295-04:00Paul VI....please. A distinction between dogmatic ...Paul VI....please. A distinction between dogmatic and pastoral is exactly what this Pope is initiating and it is a direct result of the path on which Vat II placed the Church.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-78524409643124146462016-05-21T03:40:03.855-04:002016-05-21T03:40:03.855-04:00Fr. McDonald, Jan, Marc, et al:
How can one refus...Fr. McDonald, Jan, Marc, et al:<br /><br />How can one refuse to accept any part of Vatican II -- including the part on religious freedom -- when Blessed Paul VI said the following:<br /><br />"You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others...Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application" (Letter to Arcbishop Lefebvre, Nov. 10, 1976).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-56603227479725517342016-05-20T18:08:38.959-04:002016-05-20T18:08:38.959-04:00No, it is actually kinda' fun....No, it is actually kinda' fun....Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-82412179171560532052016-05-20T17:51:41.401-04:002016-05-20T17:51:41.401-04:00
If the state exists and functions as it should, t...<br />If the state exists and functions as it should, then it will be the servant of the people and not their master. As far as the free exercise of religious belief, it must be guaranteed and protected to the extent that it can, by being incorporated in a constitutional document. Our free will comes from God Himself who does not force us to accept His existence and to obey His laws, but makes His grace freely available to us, by which it is necessary for us to respond, so that we are free to do what we ought to, and not compelled to do what we are forced to. <br /><br />Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809499822558662728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-90497842123092497082016-05-20T16:52:30.055-04:002016-05-20T16:52:30.055-04:00Gene - You fall for it every time....Gene - You fall for it every time....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44056307847455895642016-05-20T16:46:12.382-04:002016-05-20T16:46:12.382-04:00Bishops should not be statesmen, but statesmen sho...Bishops should not be statesmen, but statesmen should be chosen from among faithful Catholic laymen, and national constitutions should protect the faith and morals of the citizens. Rood Screenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09816036539243214384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-61770066345233875132016-05-20T11:02:49.103-04:002016-05-20T11:02:49.103-04:00Cute, Kavanaugh...more coyness and evasion. You su...Cute, Kavanaugh...more coyness and evasion. You sure you aren't a girl?Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-65477110805995197342016-05-20T08:33:27.275-04:002016-05-20T08:33:27.275-04:00Gene - I would be interested to know where in Chur...Gene - I would be interested to know where in Church teaching you find mention of a camera catching the resurrection of Jesus? Would that have been THE "Kodak Moment" I wonder...?Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1119421064610663682016-05-20T02:29:29.528-04:002016-05-20T02:29:29.528-04:00In the Eastern Liturgy, Christ is very often refer...In the Eastern Liturgy, Christ is very often referred to as our King and our God. I happen to agree with most of what has been said here, but some things for perspective. <br /><br />1. Is it not a duty of the state to recognize the religion of the majority in a certain way, this certainly doesn't mean that we treat those that aren't of the majority religion like jerks, or 2nd class citizens, but it's kind of like pointing out the obvious and having it codified through law. I believe Costa Rica is the only official state left that has kept it's Roman Catholic confessional state status....(Not counting the countries that are Orthodox confessional for this conversation)...Yes, the state should not be in the business of running the Church (the abuses of such a situation are well documented in both East and Western circles), and neither should the Church per se be involved in the running of the state, but rather, both should seek to serve the same mission. The Glory of God, through different means obviously. (Getting people to follow said law is a different story)...I'd argue Islam has the right idea, but a rather horrible execution of said ideal. It's certainly also true that Truth can't be forced or coerced. (in that sense, I can see where the Pope is coming from, and where the approaches from Vatican II are coming from)....<br /><br />2. But it's also true by the principle of contradiction, that all religions can't be equal, and as such can't be treated equally. To say that errors have rights is wrong. God of course gives us Free will that we will glorify Him. His Love for us can't be true if it's forced, or if we're puppets. One certainly has license to follow an erroneous religion, or thought process, but to say it's a right, most certainly can't be justified. One should certainly seek Truth, but one should also not be forced towards it....<br /><br />3. Freedom of religion should not be an end in of itself. It's a mean towards an end. The toleration of other religions is something that should definitely be done in a place where there's multiple religions. (Which is a situation we have in the US). Butt tolerance does not mean that all that false religions teach is a okay. For the sake of salvation of souls, we don't allow those religions that are false to promulgate in public....but it doesn't mean we need the police force at gun point preventing things from happening too. <br /><br />4. Ultimately, while a government seeks to be neutral, at the end of the day it can't happen. By the very nature of things, the government must come on the side of someone, or something. While it is true that being secular in of itself doesn't lead to persecuion, all it takes is one person to turn things around. <br /><br />5. At least here in the US we've never had a fully Catholic confessional state at the federal level. How we work in this situation is up for discussion. When we've had confessional states of the Catholic Faith, we've been in the majority. What we do when we're in the minority is up for debate. One can't get along with those who don't seek to get along. One could argue in the world of the East, the approach of Vatican II, helped in some parts (at least on the interpersonal level, between churches), but the approaches have really damaged the West.<br /><br />A blessed Pentecost season to everyone. <br />Православный физикhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11313371333531421128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74448547626914198912016-05-19T23:44:37.081-04:002016-05-19T23:44:37.081-04:00Is there anybody left in the Church in favor of in...Is there anybody left in the Church in favor of interpreting Dignitatis humanae in continuity with Catholic tradition? I really miss Pope Benedict... In fact that document stated it just relates to freedom from coercion as regards religion, but does not take away from traditional teaching on the moral superiority of a state that gives due rights to God and the true faith. Now, Pope Francis, who doesn't give a fig about preserving Catholic doctrine, on the one hand cavalierly wipes away that whole moral tradition, and the SSPX on the other hand are confirmed in their rejection of the good insights of Vatican Council II on the need for the state to avoid coercion in religion. And by the way, I don't object to a Catholic confessional state in the abstract, so long as due civil liberties for conscientious dissenters are preserved, and so long as the Church would not become a slave to a Left Wing Christian morality-hating state. The latter would be my biggest fear in the current state of the world, and why in the current situation, I think a constitutional state with freedom of religion is the most realistic option for the present. Charles Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-77773518274047702372016-05-19T22:37:06.562-04:002016-05-19T22:37:06.562-04:00Gene at 5:24 p.m.:
This is the translation of wha...Gene at 5:24 p.m.:<br /><br />This is the translation of what Pope Francis actually said in response to the question at the beginning:<br /><br />The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?<br /><br />Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.<br /><br />In the face of Islamic terrorism, it would therefore be better to question ourselves about the way in an overly Western model of democracy has been exported to countries such as Iraq, where a strong government previously existed. Or in Libya, where a tribal structure exists. We cannot advance without taking these cultures into account. As a Libyan said recently, “We used to have one Gaddafi, now we have fifty.”<br /><br />Ultimately, co-existence between Christians and Muslims is still possible. I come from a country where they co-habit on good terms. Muslims come to venerate the Virgin Mary and St George. Similarly, they tell me that for the Jubilee Year Muslims in one African country formed a long queue at the cathedral to enter through the holy door and pray to the Virgin Mary. In Central Africa, before the war, Christians and Muslims used to live together and must learn to do so again. Lebanon also shows that this is possible.<br /><br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-21109806045177772402016-05-19T18:53:37.981-04:002016-05-19T18:53:37.981-04:00Pope Francis is right on when His Holiness says th...<i>Pope Francis is right on when His Holiness says the following which is a direct slam against President Obama's political agenda and others of his same ilk: a healthy secularism paired with a strong law that grants above all a religious freedom is the key to a successful and peaceful state.</i><br /><br />This statement is the polar opposite of Catholic teaching. <br /><br />The key to a successful and peaceful state is the public acknowledgment of the laws of Christ the King; the honoring of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, His Mother; and the recognition that there is one, and only one, true Church, whose tenets should be enshrined in law: the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Rome.<br /><br />"Religious freedom" lays the groundwork for millions of abortions, as even many "religious" people see abortion as a religious right.<br /><br />The Southern Baptist Convention was at one time a pro-abortion organization.<br /><br />DJRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-21363880400406569972016-05-19T18:46:05.689-04:002016-05-19T18:46:05.689-04:00In regard to contradictory teachings...
I am very...In regard to contradictory teachings...<br /><br />I am very much open to the correct understanding of the following:<br /><br />For century upon century, the Church taught that it was a grave offense against God to pray and worship with schismatics and heretics. Today, the Church encourages us to pray and worship with schismatics and heretics. How does that constitute continuity with the Church's Traditional teachings in question?<br /><br />Pax.<br /><br />Mark ThomasMark Thomasnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-73199911396143504202016-05-19T18:39:00.750-04:002016-05-19T18:39:00.750-04:00But, Kavanaugh, the Church teaches that Christ lit...But, Kavanaugh, the Church teaches that Christ literally rose from the dead, like you could have gotten it with a camera, and that He will return again in historical time to judge the living and the dead...and you would not even answer the question posed by a blogger if you actually believed that. I believe you said the question was a trap and beneath you to answer. Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-68130093410024241772016-05-19T17:37:07.145-04:002016-05-19T17:37:07.145-04:00johnnyc - This link takes you to a very good essay...johnnyc - This link takes you to a very good essay on the Development of Doctrine by Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ. <br /><br /> http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_039.htm<br /><br />The concluding paragraph: "There are voices which claim to be Catholic who speak of what they call "discontinuous development" in the Church's teaching. By this they mean that doctrines of faith or morals, taught by the Church, may now contradict what the Church's authority had taught in previous centuries. This is absolutely false. When we speak of development of doctrine, we must identify this progress as continuous development. There must be continuity, which means no shadow of contradiction, between what the Church, as Mother of Truth, has taught in the past two millennia and what she teaches now. It is the same Holy Spirit, as Christ has promised, who continues teaching, in the sense of enlightening our minds on, everything which Jesus Christ had proclaimed during His visible stay in Palestine."<br /><br /><br />Fr. Michael J. Kavanaughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-70271101291105210672016-05-19T17:24:40.101-04:002016-05-19T17:24:40.101-04:00In addition to equating Islamic Jihad with Christ&...In addition to equating Islamic Jihad with Christ's great commission, the Pope says that Muslim terrorism is the West's fault. This Pope is no longer even good for laughs. He is a destructive and divisive force.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-37162203414315804822016-05-19T15:03:28.429-04:002016-05-19T15:03:28.429-04:00Once again, I appreciate Father Kavanaugh’s clear ...Once again, I appreciate Father Kavanaugh’s clear thinking on this issue.<br /><br />Gene refers to Satan’s ownership of political kingdoms and the power of the state. And how did Christ respond to this offer?<br />Anonymous 2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-22873959844642974092016-05-19T12:22:11.785-04:002016-05-19T12:22:11.785-04:00So where are we going so we'll know when we...So where are we going so we'll know when we've arrived?<br /><br />What actual brick and mortar country does the Pope have in mind as an example when lauding a secular state that guarantees religious liberty? Jusadbellumnoreply@blogger.com