At the Remnant Chris Jackson makes a logical yet counter-cultural point:
As christiantoday.com reported:
The statue was presented by the Satanic Temple, an organization “dedicated to Satanic practice and the promotion of Satanic rights,” at an undisclosed location in the city as a security measure. The Satanic Temple kept the site of the unveiling of the huge statue secret, e-mailing the information only to members of the group and others who were previously given tickets to witness the occasion, according to Raw Story.
Different Neo-Catholic commentators have decried this event, most notably Michael Voris of ChurchMilitant.com. Yet these same Neo-Catholics fully support the “religious freedom” championed by Vatican II, and also support the ecumenical initiatives of the post-Conciliar popes. Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae,states:
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.
…the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
So why then aren’t the Neo-Catholics obeying Vatican II? Instead of protesting the Satanists, they should instead be celebrating their right to religious liberty! For Vatican II declares that Satanists have a right “to be immune from coercion on the part individuals, or of social groups, and of any human power” (including Neo-Catholic protestors) so that they are not forced to act in public a manner contrary to their own beliefs. Why instead are the Neo-Catholics trying to coerce these poor Satanists into repudiating their beliefs and shut down the public expression of their religion? As for a “just public order” being observed, the Satanists are breaking no civil laws, they are simply unveiling their satanic goat statue in private. The Satanists are not causing wars or riots. In fact, the only thing close to disrupting of the public order is the media event caused in large part by the protest of Neo-Catholics and Protestants.
Further, it was none other than Pope Benedict XVI who, in a December 2005 address given to the Roman Curia, stated:
The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own faith – a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God’s grace in freedom of conscience.
So why are the Neo-Catholics opposed to these Satanists professing their faith when the martyrs of the early Church died so that they may do so? Are they in opposition to Vatican II AND Pope Benedict? After all, seeing how zealously Neo-Catholics cite Pope Benedict’s side-note that the SSPX clergy possess “no legitimate ministry” as near infallible doctrine, you would think they would pay even more respect to this pontiff’s solemn expounding on the text of an Ecumenical Council.
It’s amazing that this very simple idea is so unpopular today. I don’t think it’s true that the Apostles died for freedom of conscience. They died because Jesus was the Messiah. Their faith was THE faith. It was the Jewish faith itself. They didn’t say to themselves, “If I die then it will be good.” They proclaimed the Gospel and someone else decided it would be good for them to die. It’s good to be free to preach the true Gospel of Christ. It’s not good to be free to teach lies about God.
Laws against heresy have been in force everywhere for all time except in the modern era. If religious freedom was the cry of the Apostles, why did the Church support laws against heresy for two millennia? Where would Our Faith be today if they hadn’t? If heresy had been put down, the English nobility would never have been able to steal the Faith from the people and raid the Churches. To defend the Faith against men like Martin Luther is always to protect the innocent against the unjust.
If you don’t rule over the heretic, the heretic rules you because Evil also has its kingdom. There’s no ‘gray area’ meadow of life in which to stroll and learn, plucking different flowers, dialoguing, sharing, and practicing gradualism. Have you seen what happens to pro-life Democrats, and now pro-marriage Aussie leftists? The enemy is lined up and in formation while we lie down and giggle, pretending this pleases God.
No. Religious freedom in effect just means the spread of heresy and that is more destructive than any other crime there can be. Worship of Satan is a religion – an evil one, but in the end is it really much less evil than any religion outside the Church? The Faith is a living unified whole, a person. You can’t just break pieces off here and there. You can’t defy the order of Heaven and still be part of it. So where does that leave the heretic in the long run? It leaves him in the same evil place as the Satanist.
Religious freedom is only good when it’s the freedom to worship the true God in His Church. Other than that it’s just morbid. Witness its proud fruit all around you and learn.
Further, in a 1985 address to the Leaders and Representatives of the Islamic and Hindu Communities in Kenya, Pope John Paul II stated:
…We are all children of the same God, members of the great family of man. And our religions have a special role to fulfil in curbing these evils and in forging bonds of trust and fellowship. God’s will is that those who worship him, even if not united in the same worship, would nevertheless be united in brotherhood and in common service for the good of all.
Thus even the worship of the abstract Hindu notion of “God” found among multiple deities and strange pagan practices is considered by Vatican II and Pope John Paul II to be worshipping the true God.
So, couldn’t the same be said for those Satanists who consider Satan a deity? For, the Neo-Catholic argument goes, there is objectively only one true God. Therefore, all who believe in a Supreme Being and worship Him, are, objectively worshipping the one true God. Thus Satanists, even if they subjectively get a lot of things wrong about God, like the Muslims and Hindus, really worship the true God, whether they know it or not. Thus, in the words of Pope John Paul II, neo-catholics should “be united in brotherhood” with Satanists and “in common service for the good of all.”
So Vishnu is god. Allah is god, but not Satan? Everything but Satan is god? Do you think perhaps that the real God may take some issue with that extremely low standard and level of honor? Are we circling a drain here?