%7-ST.eQ>

'£tS.

CHTHOLIC

KnigKfs „

_Lef
?

o -hsus-f •- - -

Adt<=2£ S3

Contents 0 $

It's An Old, Old Story

Who Says Catholics Are “Unpatriotic?”

What Is “Undemocratic” About The Catholic Church?

Is The Catholic Church A Totalitarian State?

Is This A Threat To “American Freedom”?

What About Separation of Church and State?

Does The Catholic Church “Meddle” in Politics?

#

No. 35



Why the Knights of Columbus

Mvertise Catholic Faith

The reason is simple. We Catho-

lics want our non-Catholic friends

and neighbors to know us as we

really are and not as we are some

times mistakenly represented.

We are confident that when

our religious Faith is better un-

derstood by those who do not

share it, mutual understanding

will promote the good-will which

is so necessary in a predominant-

ly Christian country whose gov-

ernment is designed to serve all

the people—no matter how much

their religious convictions may

differ.

American Catholics are con-

vinced that as the teachings of

Christ widely and firmly take

hold of the hearts and conduct

of our people, we shall remain

free in the sense that Christ

promised (John VIII, 31-38),

and in the manner planned by

the Founding Fathers of this

republic.

Despite the plainly stated will

of the Good Shepherd that there

be "one fold and one shepherd,”

the differences in the understand-

ing of Christ’s teaching are

plainly evident. It has rightfully

been called "the scandal of a

divided Christianity.”

If there is anything which will

gather together the scattered

flock of Christ, it is the nation-

wide understanding of the

Savior, what Fie did and how FFe

intended mankind to benefit by

the Redemption.

To this end, we wish our

fellow-Americans to become ac-

quainted with the teachings of

Christ as the Catholic Church

has faithfully presented them,

since the day the apostles in-

vaded the nations of the world

in willing and courageous obedi-

ence to Christ’s command: "Go,

therefore, and make disciples of

all nations . . ” (Matt. XXVIII,

19).

SUPREME COUNCIL

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Religious Information Bureau

4422 LINDELL BLVD. ST. LOUIS 8, MO.

DeeMed



sc 9^1

o
p . c

. uXX.

tyUL 2 6 $84

y putc v, joe
/>. 3°i

"
e^, . tit*

'' ”





A non-Catholic bishop

some time ago likened the

the Catholic Church to

the Kremlin. He called

both of them "totalitarian

powers."

Fair-minded and in-

formed non-Catholics, of

course, were shocked and

ashamed. But a deplorably

large number apparently

agreed with the bishop.

A recent book accusing the
Catholic Church of seeking politi-

cal power . . . and questioning the

loyalty of Catholic citizens . . .was

recognized by informed non-Catho-

lics as a tissue of falsification and

misrepresentation.

Yet enough people bought the

book to pay the author a hand-

some profit, and to bring him

numerous invitations for lectures

and radio talks.

The basis for this type of bigo-

try is the contention that Catho-

lics, being obligated to heed the

Church in spiritual matters, are

therefore incapable of heeding the

state in civil obedience. The in-

sinuation is that the Catholic

Church is striving to usurp civil

powers, and that Catholic citizens

would be obligated to join forces

with the Pope in any con-

flict between the Church

and state.

This, to many non-Catho-

lics, undoubtedly sounded

like a new and valid reason

for speaking out against

the Catholic Church. Ac-

tually, the accusation is as

old as the Church itself,

and is one of many anti-

Catholic allegations which repeated-

ly have been proved false and

vicious.

Christs accusers brought only

one charge against him when they

presented their case before Pilate.

"Whosoever maketh himself a

king," they said, "speaketh against

Caesar” . . . and "if thou release

this man thou art no friend of

Caesar." Yet Pilate, being a judi-

cious man and familiar with the

limitations upon the rights of the

state, could not agree that Christ

was plotting to usurp Caesars

power, for he said he could "find

no cause in him.”

There is a close similarity be-

tween the accusations against

Christ and those that are aimed

at the Catholic Church today with

respect to its relationship to civil

states. And the amazing thing is

the contradictory reasons behind

1



these charges, depending on where

they are made.

In the United States, for ex-

ample, the charge is made that the

Church is trying to destroy democ-

racy, and is therefore an enemy of

the people. In Communist-domi-

nated countries, it pointed out

as reactionary and disloyal to "the

people’s democracy." In these

places, the Church is held to be

"un-Polish," "un-Hungarian," "un-

East German," or "un-Yugoslavi-

an," as the case may be. If the

Catholic Church is opposed to

genuine democracy, would its priests

be slaughtered and imprisoned, its

churches and schools closed by

governments which are themselves

opposed to democracy?

The short-lived Communist gov-

ernments in Central and Southern

Europe after World War I, slaugh-

tered priests, banished religious

orders and terrorized Catholics.

Mexico, under Communist rule,

closed Catholic churches and

schools and murdered priests.

Spain, under Communist control,

killed priests and confiscated the

property of religious organizations.

What A Contrast!
Who gives most to the cause of

human dignity, right and justice

— those who die for their Faith
and the principles of genuine de-

mocracy, or those who write

bigoted speeches?

Anti-Catholic bigotry is not

limited, of course, to the United

States. But in few places does it

attain an equal degree of organized

indoctrination, and such an obvi-

ous pattern of sheer hypocrisy.

What, for instance, could be more

hypocritical than to question the

loyalty of Catholic citizens who

have repeatedly gone into battle

against fellow-Catholics in the

armed forces of enemy nations?

What could be more hypocritical

than to imply a possible lack of

loyalty on the part of Catholic

citizens who have never once, in

all the history of the United

States, given a single indication of

disloyalty?

. . Good Citizens
0

Whose word would you prefer

to take in judging your Catholic

fellow-citizens — the non-Catholic
bishop who likened the Church to

the Kremlin, or the former Presi-

dent of the United States, William

Howard Taft, who said: "We can

be very sure that those who are

good Catholics are good citizens?"

Is the anti-Catholic author who

makes a living out of bigotry a

more credible witness to the truth

than the learned historian, profes-

sor of government, and champion

2



of democracy, former President

Woodrow Wilson, who said this:

"The only reason why govern-

ment did not suffer dry rot in the

Middle Ages under the aristocratic

system which then prevailed was

that so many of the men who were

efficient instruments of the gov-

ernment were drawn from the

Church — from that great religious

body which was then the only

Church, that body which we now

distinguish from other religious

bodies as the Roman Catholic

Church.

"The Roman Catholic Church

was then, as it is now, a great

democracy. There was no peasant

so humble that he might not be-

come a priest, and no priest so

obscure that he might not become

Pope of Christendom; and every

chancellery in Europe, every court

in Europe, was ruled by these

learned, trained and accomplished

men — the priesthood of that
great and dominant body. What

kept government alive in the

Middle Ages was this constant rise

of the sap from the bottom, from

the rank and file of the people

through the open channels of the

priesthood.”

Old Slanders

Most of the anti-Catholic slan-

ders circulated today date back to

the Reformation, and more particu-

larly to the English Reformation.

They were brought to the Ameri-

can continent by the first Protes-

tant settlers. Before their arrival,

the only Chrisitians in America

were Catholics.

The Protestant settlers brought

with them to America a deep-

rooted terror of Catholicism which

had been inculcated in them since

childhood. Horrible stories of

Catholic atrocities, immorality and

political intrigue were invented in

England in the early years of the

Reformation to turn the Catholic

population against their Faith.

John Foxes Book of Martyrs was

the most popular piece of this

type of propaganda, and while it

has been long since discredited by

scholars of all denominations, it

engendered a widespread hatred

and fear of Catholics and is

responsible for many of the

prejudices which exist today.

Foxes book in those days was

read from pulpits, chained in

church vestibules and widely sold.

It is small wonder that several

generations of Englishmen, nur-

tured in such falsehoods, sincerely

believed the Catholic Church to

be the terrifying monster he por-

trayed. Catholics in England who

persevered in their Faith were

fined, imprisoned and martyred.

3



As potential enemies of the state,

they were denied all civil rights

until 1829; and it was not until

the 1880’s that Catholics were

permitted to attend English uni-

versities, which had been originally

founded by Catholics.

It was this hatred and fear of

"Popery” that was imported to

America. Founded on ignorance

and influenced by a nationalistic

hatred of Catholic Spain and

Catholic France, the early Ameri-

cans had no way of knowing the

true doctrines and ideals of the

Catholic Church. Catholicism, in

fact, remained so abhorrent to the

majority of the English colonists

that they regarded the Quebec Act

of 1774, granting religious liberty

to the Catholics of French Canada,

as one of their major grievances

against King George III. Only the

heroic patriotism of American and

European Catholics in the Revo-

lutionary War, and the wise

toleration of our truly great lead-

ers, quieted threatened outbursts

by the Protestant population.

Bigotry Dies Hard

The sanity of the colonial fathers

fortunately also dominated the

conventions which drafted the

Declaration of Independence and

the United States Constitution. But

the flames of bigotry which had

burned for more than 150 years

were not smothered by these guar-

antees of religious freedom. Many

non-Catholic leaders insisted that

the United States must at all costs

be a Protestant nation.

In 1829, when the English

Parliament passed the Emancipa-

tion Act granting partial civil

liberty to Catholics for the first

time since the reign of Queen

Elizabeth, Protestants in the Unit-

ed States loudly denounced the law.

There was a repetition of the lies

originally broadcast in John Foxes

book, copies of which were im-

ported from England, and this was

the beginning of the first wave

of anti-Catholic bigotry to sweep

over the only country in the world

which was constitutionally founded

upon the premise of religious

liberty.

At first these attacks were kept

on a polite level of argumentation.

Catholic priests were invited to

answer doctrinal charges, and pub-

lic debates in New York, Phila-

delphia, Charleston and Cincinnati

attracted huge crowds. But when

the critics of Catholic doctrine

failed to prove their charges, the

debates were abandoned and the

controversy changed swiftly to

rabble-rousing bigotry.

Acts of Hate

Nothing was too vile to say

against the Catholic Church, its

sacraments, priests, religious insti-

tutions and its alleged policies. So

bitter did the conflict grow that,

between 1830 and 1850, a convent

school near Boston was burned,

Catholic churches were fired in

Philadelphia and elsewhere, and

priests were tarred and feathered

in New England.
Anti-Catholic bigotry in the

United States today does not reach

the mob-violence intensity which

brought such shame and ill-feeling

4



to these earlier generations. But

the same charges which once in-

flamed Protestant opinion against

everything Catholic are being re-

peated today in the polite guise of

books, tracts and public lectures

which suggest that the Catholic

Church and its people are un-

patriotic and undemocratic.

Today, fortunately, there is not

so much absolute ignorance of

things Catholic as there was a

century ago. The admirable re-

straint of the Catholic clergy in

the face of recurring bigotry, the

spiritual and moral strength of the

Church, the loyalty and patriotism

of the Catholic people, and the

magnificent works of charity which

the Church has established have

gained for her the respect of all

right-thinking non-Catholics.

There still remain, however,

substantial numbers of people who

do not understand the Catholic

Church, and who are therefore

gullible victims of anti-Catholic

propaganda. There are still some

who misunderstand the relation-

ship of the Catholic people to their

Church, and who still harbor the

belief that there is a vast ’papal

plot” to rob us of our freedom.

This suspicion came quickly to the

surface in the public controversy

regarding the sending of a United

States ambassador to the Vatican,

a proposal made by a non-Catholic

President and in the debating of

which Catholics had little or noth-

ing to say.

False Rumors

The charges made against the

Catholic Church today are notable

for their exact similarity to the

charges made in the 1830’s.

"Popery in its principles and

tendencies” was then condemned

as "subversive to civil and religi-

ous liberty.” Today the word

"Popery” has been replaced by the

word "Vatican,” but we are again

warned that it will "undermine

the basic principles on which the

democratic order rests.”

When Catholic schools were first
organized, it was immediately

charged that "the hierarchy seeks

power dominance through schools.”

Today, in almost the same words,

the book of a popular bigot warns

that "the hierarchy seeks power

extension through schools.”

In 1842, the American Protest-

ant Society pledged itself "to

awaken the attention of the com-

munity to the dangers which . . .

threaten these United States from

the assaults of Romanism.” In the

110 years that have elapsed, none

of these "dangers” has material-

ized, yet the author of a popular

anti-Catholic book declares in its

5



prologue that it is his "duty” to

arouse his fellow-countrymen to

the dangers of "the Catholic ques-

tion," because, he says, "the issues

involved go to the heart of our

culture and our citizenship."

One of the greatest hypocrisies

of anti-Catholic propaganda has

been the insinuation concerning

Catholic morality. Earlier genera-

tions were told that celibacy on the

part of Catholic priests was only a

license for immorality. The vilest

suggestions were circulated con-

cerning the lives of nuns.

Today the Catholic Church is

criticized on the grounds that its

code trespasses on "democratic

freedom" — this astonishing argu-
ment being based upon the

Church’s insistence upon the Ten

Commandments, and its condem-

nation of such "democratic free-

doms” as birth control, abortion,

divorce and euthanasia. Many sin-

cere non-Catholics agree with the

Catholic Church on these moral

questions, but anti-Catholic propa-

gandists try to make these moral

standards an evidence of "undemo-

cratic" teaching by the Catholic

Church.

Many Are Fair

It would be neither truthful nor

fair to suggest that all non-Catho-

lics are anti-Catholic. It was not

true in the earlier eras of bigotry,

nor is it today. But those who

would spread religious hatred often

find willing ears among the unin-

formed. It is for this reason that

the Knights of Columbus publish

pamphlets like this, and advertise-

ments in national magazines and

newspapers in the United States

and Canada, explaining what the

Catholic Church actually teaches

and what Catholics actually believe.

Today the Catholic Church,

standing before its accusers, hum-

bly asks as Christ did:

"If I have spoken evil, give

testimony of the evil; but if well,

why strikest thou me?”

Charles Carroll, statesman, was born of Catholic parents at Annapolis,

Maryland, on September 19, 1737. Educated in France, he took over

his father’s estate at Carrollton in Frederick County, in 1756. He

married Mary Darnall in 1768. Carroll aggressively defended the

rights of the colonies, and was a member of the Maryland Convention

of 1775. He was one of a Commission sent to Canada by the Con-

tinental Congress, became a member of the Continental Congress,

and was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He

aided in drawing up Maryland’s Constitution and was a member of

the Maryland Congress. In 1789 he became a member of the first

United States Senate. Carroll retired from politics in 1800 and died

on November 14, 1832, at Baltimore. The State of Maryland placed

his statue in National Statuary Hall in 1901.

— From National Catholic Almanac, 1952, page 204

6



Who Says Catholics

Are "Unpatriotic”?

The Catholic Church is the

largest single church in the

United States. It numbers

approximately 29,000,000

members, and all of them —

the laity, the priests, and

the bishops — possess full
and unqualified American

citizenship by right of birth

or legitimate acquisition.

Their religion is that estab-

lished by Christ. These 29,000,000

Catholic citizens constitute the

Catholic Church in America. To

accuse the Catholic Church of be-

ing "un-American,” as is frequently

done today, is to accuse Christ, who

founded the Catholic Church, of

being "un-American,” and to de-

fame the national loyalty of one-

fifth of the population of our

country. There is neither historical

foundation nor religious truth be-

hind the accusation.

The first religious faith ever

practiced in America was the

Catholic faith. America was dis-

covered by a Catholic, Christopher

Columbus. The English claim to

the North American coast was

based on the discoveries of John

Cabot, a Catholic, for a Catholic

king, Henry VII of England. The

Catholic faith was practiced and

many native Indians were

converted in North Ameri-

ca for over a century before

the landing of the Pilgrims.

The greater part of our

country — all the territory
west of the Alleghenies —

was discovered and opened

up by Catholics. Irrefutable

evidence of this is seen in

the place names of our

country from St. Augustine, Flori-

da, to San Francisco, California;

from St. Croix, Maine, to Corpus

Christi, Texas.

Catholicism was first brought to

these shores from Europe when

America was discovered. It was

more than a century later that any

Protestant denomination so much

as put in an appearance. With the

exception of a few comparatively

new minor sects, every Christian

faith practiced in America was

brought here from Europe and not

one of them can be called distinc-

tively American. Nor is there any

reason why it should be. All claim

to be Christian and hence from

Christ, and Christ lived 2000

years ago in Palestine — never in
the United States.

The Catholic Church is a univer-

sal, world-wide church. Its doctrine

7



is the same everywhere. Its sacra-

ments are the same everywhere. Its

form of worship — the Mass — is
not essentially different when per-

formed by a Chinese priest in

Formosa, an American bishop in

Detroit, a missionary in the

Congo, or a parish priest in any

one of the major cities of the

world. The Catholic Church is

everywhere; it is always essentially

the same. A religious body whose
membership is made up of peoples

of every possible nationality, can

maintain its spiritual integrity and

universal appeal only if its central

governing body is independent of

every national tie or national alle-

giance. It cannot be subject to any

shadow of national domination.

Our own federal government, act-

ing on the same principle of

independence, could not preserve

its national integrity if it were

subject in any way to any one of

the forty-eight states which make

up our nation. Therefore, the seat

of our federal government has been

located in the District of Columbia,

a small national territory admin-

istered by our national government

and having no dependence what-

ever on any of the individual state

governments. The unique position

of Washington, D. C. as the seat

of our federal government, is so

obvious as to be overlooked. Yet

in the early days of our republic

it was a problem of prime impor-

tance. After several unsatisfactory

shifts of locality, it was solved only

by the happy compromise of the

independent District of Columbia.

The central governing body of

the Catholic Church, since the days

of St. Peter has been located in

Rome. Rome was the unifying
center of the Empire, the center

of the known civilized world and
therefore it also had to be the

unifying center of the Christian

world. Christians everywhere in the

world looked to the See of Peter,

the Bishop of Rome, for settlement

of doctrinal and disciplinary dis-

putes.

When the political empire of
Rome succumbed to the repeat-

ed barbarian invasions from the

north, it was the Pope of Rome,

the head of the spiritual govern-

ment, who subdued and civilized

the barbarians and transmitted to

them the faith and culture which

the Church had preserved. But the

Church is not today, nor was it

then, "Roman” or "Italian” because

the Vatican is geographically lo-

cated in Rome, Italy. The Church,

then as now, despite the vast his-

torical and structural changes in

the governments and nations of the

world, is supra-national and above

and apart from the civil adminis-

8



tration of temporal affairs outside

Vatican City.

The Catholic Church is one faith

for many nations, whereas the

United States is one nation for

many faiths. Citizens of every na-

tion are spiritually united in their

religious beliefs under the Vicar

of Christ, who is also the Bishop

of Rome. The citizens of the

United States, of almost every

religious and even atheistic belief,

are united in their national loyalty

under the flag of the United States.

The national motto, E pluribus

unum — means "from many one”
and Catholics are a part of that

"many.” Loyalty to Christ’s doc-

trines as preserved and taught by

the Catholic Church has never

diminished loyalty to the nation.

Neither the Catholic Church nor

the government of the United

States has ever infringed upon each

other’s rights.

The government, both federal and

state, has never assumed to legislate

in the field of church affairs. The

Catholic Church has never ad-

vanced political policies or ambi-

tions. In the almost 200 years

since the United States Constitu-

tion has been the law of the land,

the Catholic Church has never

voiced any political aims, formed

a political party, or tried to "engi-

neer an election.” In all affairs

relating rightly and solely to the

domain of secular government, the

Catholic Church is neutral. Indeed,

priests are forbidden to "talk

politics” from the pulpit. Catholics,

like all other citizens, are free to

belong to any political party of

their own choosing or to form

their own party. Because of the

unique nature of the two-party

system in the United States, Catho-

lics have never shown any inclina-

tion to form a political bloc, nor

is there the remotest possibility

that they will. Their votes, as far

as can be statistically determined,

are rather evenly divided between

the Democrats and the Republi-

cans, regardless of the religious

affiliations of the candidates.

The Catholic Church always has

claimed the right to teach and the

right to protect its members in the

practice of their faith. The Church

bases these rights on Christs com-

mand to "teach all nations whatso-

ever I have commanded.” Christ

established a visible Church which

was to "render to Caesar the things

that are Caesar’s and to God the

things that are God’s.” The Church

has no quarrel with any nation

unless it usurps the "things that

are God’s.” There is nothing of

9



“foreign domination” or “un-

Americanism” in these Christ-given

rights of the Church. The ultimate

interpretation of morals and religi-

ous beliefs is not the business of

civil government. The Church al-

ways has upheld the same beliefs

and code of morality entrusted to

her by Christ.

This Is The "Rock”

The entire structure of Western

civilization was erected on the

foundation stones of the Catholic

Church. Until nearly half a century

after the discovery of America,

there was no religious disunity

among the peoples that made up

the nations of Western Europe.

The spiritual and supra-national

character of the Church did not

prevent Frenchmen from being

loyal to their country and to their

Church, or Catholics from being

good Englishmen, good Germans,

and good Spaniards.

Religious disunity was intro-

duced into Western civilization by

the reformation — which gave rise
to Protestantism. But the Protestant

kings and princes did not grant

religious toleration to subjects of

dissenting denominations. Not

even the Puritans did that. The

Constitution of the United States

was the first political document

which unequivocally and perma-

nently established religious freedom

for a nation. The Constitution, in

giving freedom to every church

and sect to worship within the

bounds of good behavior, guaran-

teed that the United States would

not establish a national church and

that each church would be accorded

equal civil protection.

The Catholic Church gave its

support and blessing to the new-

born, struggling nation. The Church

recognized that the new state was

founded on Christian principles. It

also recognized the Government of

the United States as the power

ordained by God to maintain the

social order. The first Catholic

bishop in the United States, Bishop

John Carroll, native American, close

friend of George Washington, and

the uncle of one of the signers

of the Declaration of Independ-

ence, exerted all his influence to

further the true principles and

traditions of democracy and free-

dom which are incorporated in the

United States Constitution. And the

Catholic bishops who have suc-

ceeded him have followed in his

footsteps. They have constantly en-

joined upon all citizens the duties

of patriotism and obedience to the

civil government.

True Citizens

Catholics in the United States

are truly Americans. Their religi-

ous affiliations with the head of

the Catholic Church, the Vicar of

Christ, do not make them un-

American. The spiritual obedience

of the Catholic Church in the

United States to the Pope in Rome

is not an un-American connection

with a foreign power-seeking

tyrant, as some anti-Catholic agi-

tators would have us believe.

Catholics, whether they are mem-

bers of the hierarchy, parish

priests, or laymen, have never

demanded more than the free

exercise of their faith and citizen-

10



ship as guaranteed to all individuals

by the Constitution of the United

States and the constitutions of the

forty-eight states. Yet, today, some

critics libel the Catholic Church

with the traitorous label of

"un-American” and "foreign domi-

nated.” They cannot deny the

constitutionally guaranteed rights

and they cannot prove from fact

that the sincere practice of Catho-

licism has undermined the loyalty

of any Catholic to his country. The

very obvious loyalty, bravery, and

patriotism of American Catholic

soldiers and their chaplains expose

the lie behind this libel. Therefore

these same critics insist that their

charges — their smears — apply to

"the Church” or "the hierarchy.”

They are attempting the same

tactics used by the Communists

against the Catholic populations

east of the Iron Curtain — to sepa-

rate the faithful from their shep-

herds, the bishops. The "Vatican

line,” they claim, is a sinister

world power-seeking totalitarian-

ism. It is attempting to undermine

progress and liberty by using the

coercive weapon of excommu-

nication to enforce unscientific

medieval morality; it fosters super-

stitious practices for the enrich-

ment of the Pope and clergy. In

truth, however, the only "Vatican

line” known to Catholics every-

where is the channel of grace which

comes to us through the sacra-

ments. The other so-called "sinister

Vatican line” is as familiar to

Catholics as Moscow-inspired prop-

aganda. It is also the same false

propaganda that always has been

hurled against the Catholic Church.

Yet, this world-wide spiritual

organization which is the Catholic

Church cannot be destroyed by these

attacks. It preaches "Christ cruci-

fied.” It triumphs not because it

destroys nations but because it

raises the hearts of their citizens

to the true values of life. These

permanent values were incorpo-

rated into the United States Con-

stitution. Every attack against the

Catholic Church in American

therefore, naturally reverberates as

an attack against the government.

Because of the persistence of

these charges of "un-Americanism,”

it might be well to look at the

history behind them. The early

Protestant colonists, living in an

age of intense religious rivalry,

brought with them to America a

great fear and hatred of Catholicism

which had been inculcated into

them by the untrue propaganda of

the first reformers. Catholics were

forbidden to settle in many of the

thirteen colonies.

11



The providential assistance dur-

ing the Revolution of Catholic

France and Catholic Poland, coupled

with the Christian charity and

good sense of George Washington,

effected a change in this attitude.

Out of deference to Catholic allies,

the Pope was no longer burned in

effigy. The loyalty and valor of the

Irish Catholics, who comprised one-

third of the Revolutionary army,

won the special commendation of

the commander-in-chief. This new

spirit of toleration was incorporated

into the national Constitution in

1789, although many of the original

states continued their constitutional

restrictions against Catholics long

after the adoption of the federal

Constitution. New Hampshire, for
example, refused public office to

Catholics until 1876.

Repeated waves of anti-Catholic

bigotry followed the lull of these

first years of the national history.

Each new wave stirred up hatred

against the papacy and reiterated

the false theme that Catholicism was

inconsistent with the liberalism of

the United States, whereas it al-

ways has been the agitators who

were inconsistent with the Con-

stitution. Yet Catholics continued

to swell the ranks of the citizenry,

to fight in all wars, and to uphold

American traditions and liberties.

Catholics will continue in their

loyalty despite the clamor of the

agitators who would make of the

country a test-tube for every new

social and political shibboleth re-

gardless of the consequences and

the muddle and confusion which

will result.

The charges and allegations of

"un-Americanism” against the

Catholic Church are utterly un-

founded, and even unimaginable,

when we stop to consider the im-

portant role that the Church has

taken throughout the history of

this country. It was an ardent

Catholic, Christopher Columbus,

who, financed by Catholic funds,

discovered the New World. On
his second voyage of exploration,

he brought with him twelve priests,

the first of a long line of mission-

aries for the conversion and civiliz-

ing of the pagan natives. The very

name, America

,

which was in-

scribed on one of the first maps

of the New World after Amerigo
Vespuccio, an early Catholic ex-

plorer, is a variation of St. Emeric,

a Hungarian saint, whose name,

incidentally, means self-government

or liberty. Who has not thrilled to
the stirring accounts of bravery

and courage of those early explor-

ers and missionaries like the Jesuit

St. Isaac Jogues, Pere Marquette,

Joliet, the Franciscan Fathers Louis

12



Hennepin and Junipero Serra — to

mention only a few? Indeed, as the

Protestant historian Bancroft wrote,

"Not a cape was turned or a river

entered, but a Jesuit led the way.”

The first thought of these Catholic

explorers was of God and His

Church. The map of the United

States is dotted with the place

names that remain as mute testi-

mony of their courage and the

Catholic heritage. We have, for
example, Los Angeles (The An-

gels), Santa Fe (Holy Faith),

Corpus Christi (Body of Christ),

Vera Cruz (True Cross), Santa

Cruz (Holy Cross), Notre Dame,

Loretto, St. Louis, St. Paul, St.

Albans, San Antonio, San Diego

(St. James), St. Joseph, Sacra-

mento, and Sault Ste. Marie.

Religious Toleration

It was the Catholic Lord Calvert

who first granted religious toleration

by law in Maryland at a time when

non-conformists were being perse-

cuted and banished in the other

British colonies. It was largely

through the support of Catholic

France and Spain that the Colonies

were able to win their independ-

ence; and it was through the efforts

of the Catholic Archbishop of New
York, Archbishop John Hughes,

that France did not recognize the

Confederacy in 1861.

The Jesuit missionary, Father De

Smet, who labored unselfishly and

devotedly among the Indian tribes

of the West for almost forty

years, was one of the few white

men whom the Indians respected

and loved. This "Black Robe”

alone prevented innumerable up-

risings and it was he who, in 1868,

was able to make peace for the

Government with the hostile Sioux.

In the fields of education and

charity, it was the Catholics who

opened the first schools and hospi-

tals in America. Catholic nuns

were the first nurses to minister

to the wounded and dying on

American battlefields. And finally,

it was Catholic political doctrine

which was revived to offset the

tyranny of autocratic kings, that

was incorporated into the Ameri-

can Declaration of Independence

and the Constitution of the United

States.

These basic principles of political

and civil liberty and self-govern-

ment ante-date by centuries the

rise of Protestantism. It is not

the Catholic Church and Catholic

citizens who are "un-American”

but those who make the accusation

in violation of the Constitution

and the American principles of

democracy. Catholics know that by

being loyal to their Church they

are also loyal to their country — the
United States, Canada, or what-

ever nation in which they hold

citizenship.

13



' What Is “Undemocratic” About
’

The CATHOLIC CHURCH?
* -

To hear some people tell it,

the Catholic Church is an

enemy of government of the

people, for the people, and

by the people.

This is especially true

among some groups in the

United States, who attempt

to prove that the Catholic

Church is "un-democratic”

. . . that the hierarchy makes

all the rules and laws in a foreign

land and United States Catholics

must obey them without argument

or dissent.

As a matter of fact, every

American democratic principle and

tradition is but an application and

development of the principles and

traditions of political theory ad-

vocated and practiced by the

Catholic Church since its founda-

tion.

The foundation stone of democ-

racy is the inherent dignity of man

— of all men. The practical ex-
pression of this principle is

equality before the law and

equality of opportunity. Without

these qualities, there could be no

democratic form of government —

no basis for free discussions and

free elections.

The 20 centuries of the history

of the Catholic Church are a

* -*- *

stirring drama of the strug-

gle for the freedom and

equality of man against the

tyranny of rulers and states.

It is the story behind the

martyrs in the Colosseum,

behind Emperor Henry IV

and Pope Gregory VII, be-

hind the Magna Charta and

King John. This is the

background of representa-

tive government and the rise of

parliaments. These are Catholic

victories over despotism that were

won centuries before the Protes-

tant Reformation. The right of the

people to overthrow the rule of a

tyrant — a right later incorporated
into the United States Declaration

of Independence — was declared by
the Catholic Church as a principle

for men everywhere many centuries

before July 4, 1776.

In view of these historic facts,

it is ridiculous for anyone to sug-

gest that the Catholic Church is

opposed to democracy or the rights

of the people to self-government.

The critics of the Church in this

respect, in fact, are not actually

talking about a genuine kind of

democracy at all. And they loosely

apply the term “democracy" in a

way that renders it meaningless.

14



The principles of self-govern-

ment and democracy do not

necessarily apply outside the social

order. How, for example, can the

democratic principle of free dis-

cussion be applied in the fields of

knowledge ? The laws of physics are

not subjects for debate and a vote

based on democratic opinion. We
cannot discuss all the evidence on

nuclear fission and let each person

decided for himself which evidence

to accept or reject. A child accepts
the fact that 2x2 equals 4 because
there is exact knowledge on the

subject — a voice of authority in
the matter.

The Christian religion must also

be accepted on authority. We can
all learn a little about it by using

our powers of reasoning, but still

we must finally depend on an

authority if we are rightly to under-

stand it and be able to choose the

true from the false. Like the sen-

sible person traveling into an

unknown area, we need a map.

When we are sick, we don’t consult

the medical books and try to cure

ourselves — we call in a doctor, an
authority.

Catholics believe that God re-

vealed the true way to eternal

happiness through Christ. Christ

spoke as one having authority. He

taught "with authority.” He did

not invite His followers to hold

forums and discuss His teachings.

He did not say that they might

accept some of His teachings be-

cause they were pleasing, and reject

others which were not.

Those who found Christ’s teach-

ings "hard,” we are told, "walked

with Him no more.” Christ re-

buked the Scribes and Pharisees

for their disbelief. He did not seek

their confirmation by a majority

vote. He made it clear that He was

the Son of God, and we the "chil-

dren” and "servants.” He is the

"Shepherd,” we the "sheep.” What

He came to tell us was the Law —

not a theory which we had the

privilege of discussing, changing,

or voting upon.

Voice of Authority

Knowing the fickleness of the

majority, Christ made sure in

establishing His Church that it

would be able to speak "with

authority.” There would have been

no point in doing otherwise. And

He said to the apostles: "He that

heareth you, heareth Me”. . . "Teach

them all things, whatsoever I have

commanded you.” He did not say:

"Teach them what the majority

think.” He did not say: "Change

My teaching to fit changing social

and political conditions.” Nor did

He say: "If a majority of the

15



people, by the democratic process

of discussion, reject what I have

told you, then teach them whatever

will agree with their opinions.”

Christ knew that His doctrines

would be questioned. Many of His

contemporaries refused to believe

them. They rejected the doctrine

of transubstantiation, finding it

impossible to believe the words:

"Unless you eat My flesh and drink

My blood you shall not have life

in you.” Christs teaching on di-

vorce was not accepted by many

who first heard it, yet Our Lord

did not mitigate His teaching to

suit them.

The Full Truth

Truth is not subject to popular

discussion and a vote. It is fixed,

permanent, unchanging. It is some-

thing we believe in as right — not
merely because it happens to suit

our own opinions. And Christ is

our trustworthy source for the

truths of religion.

The Catholic Church alone can

claim that it possesses and teaches

the entire Truth taught by Christ.

The Catholic Church alone claims

that it cannot err in matters of

doctrine and morals because it

alone was established by Christ.

The Catholic Church, like its

Founder, cannot alter or mitigate

its teachings. It cannot submit its

doctrines for a majority' vote. As

the teachings of the Church are

the teachings of Christ, we cannot

revise them — any more than the
world of science could repeal or

change the law of gravity.

Christ unfolded to us the entire

body of religious truth and estab-

lished His Church to teach this

truth to the nations of the world.

If we wish to accept His truth, we

must accept His Church.

Our Lord did not institute His

Church as a self-governing body

of men with power to revise and

amend His teaching. He selected a

group of apostles with St. Peter as

their head to uphold and teach the

traditions and doctrine of Christ.

The bishops of the Catholic Church

are the successors to the apostles;

the Pope is the successor to the

first Pope, St. Peter.

The apostles and disciples in

apostolic times did not vote on

what they were to believe. On the

contrary, they took pains to write

down and to preserve Our Lord’s

Word and to make sure that words

and* traditions not so written would

be faithfully communicated not

only to the body of the faithful, but

to the teaching successors who were

to follow them.

When conflict arose among the

apostles, it was St. Peter who

16



enunciated the truth and rejected

the false. Doctrine was never a

matter of "private judgment” or

majority vote after Peter had

spoken. Nor is there any doubt

among Catholics when the Pope,

acting as the successor of Peter

and the Vicar of Christ, speaks on

any matter of faith and morals.

The penalty of "private judg-

ment” is clearly demonstrated in

our times by the fact that those

who advocate it are poles apart on

the meaning of Christ’s word.

Catholics, on the other hand, are

united in their beliefs the world

over for they believe that Christ

empowered the Church to speak

for Him and that the pronounce-

ments of the Church are the pro-

nouncements of Our Lord.

"A Great Democracy”

The late President Woodrow

Wilson, a non-Catholic, described

the Catholic Church as "a great

democracy,” in which there is "no

peasant so humble that he might

not become a priest, and no priest

so obscure that he might not be-

come Pope of Christendom.” How
closely this resembles the tradi-

tional belief of citizens of the

United States that every boy has

the right to aspire to be President.

You might imagine, from listen-

ing to some U. S. citizens, that the

philosophy of democracy was

totally unheard of until invented

by Americans. And while the world

certainly admires, and often envies,

the political freedom Americans

enjoy, the plain truth is that the

principles of democracy are but the

outgrowth of the basic truths

taught by Christ and held inviolate

by the Catholic Church for nearly

20 centuries.

The belief that "all men are

created equal” is but a part of the

Catholic creed that "God is no re-

specter of persons.” The "self-

evident” truths contained in the

Declaration of Independence are

Catholic political principles which

had flourished in Catholic Europe

for many centuries before the re-

volt against the Church of Luther

and Henry VIII.

In the light of such historic

evidence, who can still honestly

maintain that there is anything

undemocratic about the Catholic

Church?

A survey completed Jan. 1948, showed that approximately twenty-
four percent of all the members of the armed services in World War

II were Catholics. It was reported on Aug. 31, 1943, that religious

preference of American soldiers was thirty-one
/
percent Catholic.

The chief of army chaplains during the war was Brig. General

William R. Arnold, who was consecrated Titular Bishop of Phocaea

and Military Delegate in 1935. Catholic chaplains serving the armed

forces between Pearl Harbor and V-J day numbered 3,036; 83 of

these died during the war, 32 were battle deaths and 2 are listed as

missing in action. — From National Catholic Almanac, 1952, page 203

17



Is The Catholic Church

A Totalitarian State?

The Catholic Church is not,

as some of its critics allege,

a totalitarian dictatorship

seeking world empire un-

der the Pope.

The Church seeks no

temporal or economic domi-

nation. It has no military

force, no atomic stockpile,

with which to compel the

submission of its enemies

or its own members. The Pope does

not rule by fear. He did not be-

come Pope by political maneuver-

ing. He did not seize power and

then make laws to keep him in

office. These are the tactics of

dictators — not practices of the
Catholic Church.

The Pope is the duly elected

Vicar of Christ — the lawful suc-
cessor to St. Peter, the Bishop of

Rome, and the head of Christen-

dom. He is also the ruler of

Vatican City, a small, independent

sovereign state in Rome, Italy. As

the Vicar of Christ, the Pope speaks

and teaches with the authority of

Christ. But he speaks and teaches

only in those domains of human

life which concern the relationship

between God and man.

The Pope’s position is essentially

that of a teacher, just as Christ was

a teacher. Like all teachers,

he must speak with author-

ity and truth. This does not

make him a dictator, how-

ever, for in his teaching he

is not expressing a personal

whim or asking people to

believe in some fancy of

his own imagination. The

infallible pronouncements

of the Pope on dogma and

morality are not the dictation of

new edicts previously unknown to

the Catholic world. They are defi-

nitions of unchanging and believed

truths which always have been a

part of the religion established by

Christ. In almost every instance,

such infallible pronouncements of

a dogma or elucidation of a moral

law, have been made to clarify a

doctrine which had become subject

to misrepresentation or attack.

The ex cathedra proclamations

of the Pope are binding in con-

science on all Catholics who wish

to remain members of the Church.

But the Pope has no means of

forcing belief or obedience. He

cannot jail Catholics who dissent,

nor send them to concentration

camps. He has no secret police to

ferret out unbelievers. Those who

do not believe are free to leave the

18



Church. There is no force, save

their own conscience, to bring

them back. How, then, can the

Pope be called a dictator?

But, it has been argued, the

Pope holds the power of excom-

munication over those who dare

to differ with his opinions on

doctrine and morals. He "refuses

the sacraments" to the impenitent

and, as God’s Vicar, he "ruthlessly

condemns wilfull unbelievers to

eternal perdition."

In reply to these allegations, the

actual teaching of the Catholic

Church is that all who are morally

convinced that the Catholic Church

is the true Church established by

Christ and yet refuse to join and

obey the Church, are acting against

conscience and therefore are in

danger of eternal damnation.

It is a gross misrepresentation

to say that the Pope condemns

anyone to "eternal perdition." The

Pope has no authority over indi-

vidual conscience. He merely re-

iterates Christ’s teaching: "Do this

and you will be saved,” or "This

is against the commandments of

God." But no Pope has ever pro-

nounced on the damnation of any

individual soul. Not even the Vicar

of Christ would presume to judge

the conscience of one who is seem-

ingly impenitent. That only God

can do.

Excommunication

The so-called "threat of excom-

munication" is not, as alleged, a

club held over the heads of Catho-

lics. It merely gives notice that

those who refuse to abide by the
rules of the Church cannot remain

members of the Church. Being

familiar with the laws of the

Church, the excommunicated indi-

vidual knows by what acts or

failures to act he removes himself

from the communion of the Catho-

lic Church. He also knows the

conditions under which he may

return.

The Church has the duty of

preserving intact the entire oody

of truth entrusted to it by Christ.

Any individual opinion conflicting

with this body of truth must be

rejected and the individual holding

such false opinion is not entitled

to do so and still remain a mem-

ber of the Church. It is much the

same as with a man who belongs

to a political party but speaks

against the party platform. He is,

and properly so, "read out" of the

partv because he himself has for-

feited his right to membership.

Refuting A Bigot

The author of the latest popular

anti-Catholic book tries to make

it appear that this "power of ex-

communication" is a sinister means

of control used by the Church to

hold its people "in line." Would it

not be ridiculous for any organiza-

tion, or government, to have laws

and regulations which a member

might defy or ignore at will?

Could the United States be called

a dictatorship because the rights

of a citizen to vote and hold office

are withdrawn if he is convicted

of certain violations of the law?

The "refusal of the sacraments,"

to which this author refers, is not

in fact a refusal at all. It is a for-

feiture by the individual of his

19



right to the sacraments. Either one

believes and belongs to the Church,

or he is not a Catholic. Under a

dictatorship, either one conforms

or he lays himself open to the

prospect of punishment, including

imprisonment, or death in some

cases.

Some critics bluntly assert that

the Church “exercises absolute

imperial power” in faith, morals,

education, marriage, and the cen-

sorship of reading matter. Catho-

lics, it is alleged, must believe

everything the hierarchy tells them,

do everything the bishops com-

mand, marry according to the

dictates of their priests, send their

children to parochial schools, and

not read anything that is critical

of the Catholic Church.

Catholics are Catholic for just

one reason. They believe that the

Catholic Church was established by

Christ and teaches Christ’s truth in

its entirety. They believe, there-

fore, what their bishops under the

Pope teach on questions of faith

and morals because the Pope and

the bishops are the successors of

the Apostles, the first bishops, to

whom Christ said: “He that hear-

eth you, heareth Me.”

Marriage A Sacrament
But, remember, it is only in the

fields of faith and morals that the

Church exercises its teaching au-

thority. Marriage, for example, is

a sacrament instituted by Christ

for the sanctification of the mar-

ried couple. It is not a civil contract

for the convenience of society, but

a holy obligation entered into un-

der clearly defined conditions, and

when these conditions are met, the

sacrament is indissoluble. There-

fore, marriage comes under the

jurisdiction of the Church, and

governments recognize this juris-

diction by giving ministers of

religion the right to officiate at

marriages.

The author whose book ques-

tions the patriotism and loyalty of

Catholics apparently predicates his

theories on an imagined subser-

vience of the Catholic people to

the hierarchy. He decries the in-
fluence of the hierarchy, for

example, in such matters as educa-

tion and censorship of reading

matter.

Misrepresentation

With respect to education, the

theory he expounds is readily ex-

posed as false both to fact and

effect. The only reason that Catho-

lics maintain parochial schools is

that they regard their Faith as their

greatest heritage, and they want

their children to share it. This is

possible only if the children are

instructed in the faith as a basis

for all their thinking and living,

which is not possible in a public

school or Sunday school.

As to censorship of reading

matter, this is an advisory and pro-

tective aspect of their Church for

which sensible Catholics are grate-

ful. The Church says to them, in

effect: “You possess 'the pearl of

great price — your faith. Keep it
pure and undimmed. Do not blur
and foul your mind and feed your

imagination with falsehood and

immorality, any more than you

would knowingly feed your body

20



with poisons that would damage

and destroy it."

In matters not relating to faith

and morals, Catholics are no more

obliged to follow the opinions of

bishops and priests than are non-

Catholics. There is a wide diver-

sity of opinion among Catholics

as among the members of any other

religious bodies on social, economic

and political questions. The only

difference is that Catholics are

urged to base their judgments on

the standards of Christ.

Laws For Religion

If Catholics did not believe that

their Church had the right to

exercise ecclesiastical authority in

the fields of faith and morals, there

would be no Catholic Church to-

day. If they did not believe that

the Church holds aloft the stand-

ards of Christ in a dark world,

they would not believe in the

teachings of the Catholic Church.

There always have been people

who refuse to admit any standards

outside their own ideas. They are

intolerant of objective truth and

of a moral code laid down by God.

If everyone followed their line of

reasoning, there would be no

authoritative basis for religious

certitude — indeed, religion would
follow the trend of the times in-

stead of remaining a rock of

eternal truth.

Catholics are charged by this

critical author with putting the

Church above the state. What he
should have said is that Catholics

put God above the state, and that
they do. And he might have added
that any person who truly believes

in God — whether he be Catholic,
Protestant or Jew — does exactly
the same thing.

The primary function of the

Catholic Church is to serve and

worship God. Christ said: "Seek

ye first the kingdom of God and

His justice." With St. Peter, the

Church proclaims: "We ought to
obey God, rather than men."

Christ’s law is not a command-

ment based on coercion. It is not

a sentence to penal servitude, but

the call of Infinite Mercy. Christ s

call is, "Come to Me all you that
labor and are burdened, and I will

refresh you. Take up My yoke
upon you and learn of Me. . . . For

My yoke is sweet and My burden
light." This is the dictatorship

established by Christ and continued

since the death of Christ by His

Church. It is the coercion of love.

"If you love Me, you will keep

My commandments." Christ Him-
self laid down the yardstick of our

love: the measure in which we are

faithful to His Commandments. He

spoke very definitely about His

Commandments.

"One Shepherd, One Flock"

Nor did He quibble about the

punishment that would be meted

out to them who wilfully ignored

His teaching. Yet, withal, He pre-

ferred not to act as the stern judge,

but as a shepherd leading His flock

and seeking out the lost sheep.

In His infinite wisdom, He knew

that there could be only "one fold

and one shepherd," "one Lord, one

faith, one baptism." And He estab-

lished His Church — the Catholic
Church — to maintain that oneness,

21



that unity which only God can

maintain.

For this reason the Catholic

Church was founded on a hier-

archial pattern, duplicating Christ

and His apostles. One shepherd,

the Pope; one faith, the body of

revelation and tradition preserved

by the Catholic Church as taught

by Christ; one baptism, the sacra-

ment which incorporates us into

the Church and makes us a part of

the "one fold.” This is not dictator-

ship or totalitarianism unless Chris-

tianity in its entirety be totalitari-

anism.

Today there are over 375,000,000

persons in the world who make up

the "one fold" of Christ under

"one shepherd,” the Pope. This

extraordinary unity is a mystery

to the non-Catholic. In his amaze-

ment he either analyzes it honestly

and becomes a part of it, or he

condemns it on sight. The fact

that 375,000,000 individuals share

a common faith and a uniform

sacramental system and form of

worship, that they uphold the

identical standards of morality and

acknowledge a man in a distant

country as their supreme pontiff,

is explicable to them only in terms

of coercion. If these hundreds of

millions of people were free to

think for themselves, these harsh

judges rationalize, there would be

no Catholic Church. For them such

unity is possible only by the use

of compulsion. They refuse to see

that such unity is possible only

with God.

To insure the unity of His

Church, Christ founded a visible,

organic body with St. Peter and

his successors as the center of its

authority and jurisdiction. To St.

Peter and the apostles Christ en-

trusted the one faith and the

sacraments which are the bond of

unity found only in the Catholic

Church. Attempts were made from

the beginning to break these bonds

and to deny the authority of Peter,

just as some of the contemporary

followers of Christ would not ac-

cept His teaching.

Neither Christ nor His immedi-

ate successors, as related in the

Acts of the Apostles, divided and

subdivided His Church to accom-

modate the doubters. The doubters

were free to walk their own way.

Christ did not water down his

doctrine to win them back. Just

so the Catholic Church has never

watered down Christ’s revealed

truth to keep the dissenters. The

unity is inherent in the doctrine —

one body of truth. We can either
become a part of that unity by

professing our faith and acknowl-

edging the visible Vicar of Christ,

or we can, like some of the

disciples of old, walk away. Christ

used no coercion to win and hold

His followers. Neither does the

Catholic Church.

22



IS THIS A THREAT TO

AMERICAN "FREEDOM”?

The only Church today —

almost 2000 years after the

death of Christ — which
makes the exclusive claim to

be the one visible Church

founded by Christ is the

Catholic Church. It is the

only Church that insists

on unity — unity in its
doctrine, unity in its com-

mandments, unity in its

government and administration. It

is the only Church in existence

today that positively asserts that

it is informed by the Holy Ghost

and "sanctified in truth.” It is the

only Church that dares to refer to

itself as the "Mystical Body of

Christ” of which we are called to

be members. Christ referred to His

Church as "one fold.” St. Paul

called it "the Body of Christ.”

It is the great mission of the

Catholic Church to unite the na-

tions of the world in the oneness

of Christ. In order to fulfill this

mission, the Catholic Church de-

mands the right to "teach all

nations” whatsoever Christ has

"commanded.” The Church has the

obligation to preserve these teach-

ings of Christ free from error so

that they shall be transmitted in

their entirety to each new genera-

tion. The Church also has

the obligation of protecting

her children from error or

from impairment of their

faith, for "what doth it

profit a man, if he gain the

world, and suffer the loss of

his own soul?”

It is also the primary

duty of the Catholic Church

to worship and reverence

and love God and His Son, Jesus

Christ. Therefore, daily, throughout

the world, Catholic priests offer

the Sacrifice of the Mass, the

mystical and symbolical reenact-

ment of Christ’s supreme sacrifice

on Calvary. Christ is reverenced in

the worship and honor that is

bestowed upon Him in the Blessed

Sacrament. This Holy Eucharist,

this Divine Presence, this Holy of

Holies, this Body and Blood of

Christ, is always present in Catho-

lic churches. Christ who said, "I

will not leave you orphans,” re-

mains with us. Catholics, believing

in His true presence among us,

bestow upon Him more than regal

honors. No church edifice can be
too stately to house the King of

Kings, no decorations are too rich

for the Risen Lord "of whose King-

dom there shall be no end.” No

23



art, no music, no liturgy is too

splendid to honor Him who be-

came poor and obedient for our

salvation. Similarly, no pomp and

splendor can be too extravagant to

pay tribute to Him in the person

of His Vicar, the Pope, and His

delegates, the bishops.

Like Civil Order

Even the priests who offer Mass

and administer the sacraments as

‘other Christs,” receive the honor

that belongs to Christ, just as

diplomats receive the honor that

is due to the ruler of the country

which they represent. Christ is the

center and the essence of the Catho-

lic Church. Without Him and His

abiding presence there would be

no Catholic Church. Like all other

human institutions it would long

since have dissolved into a mere

page of history. Without Christ

there would be no Western civil-

ization and the ideals which it

nurtured. Without Christ there

would be no true democracy and

no freedom. Both our cultural and

political heritage would have been

impossible without Christ and His

Church.

This Church traces its origin in

an unbroken succession of popes

to the apostles and to Christ. De-

spite persecution and suppression

at one time or another in almost

every country in the world, and

despite even the treachery of some

of its members, the Catholic

Church has outlived every political

and social upheaval of the last

twenty centuries. Today in the

United States the Church is ac-

cused of being un-American and

a threat to the American way of

life. Why? Because, they tell us,
Catholic practices dictated by the

Vatican, clash with American free-

dom. Catholic ceremonial, elabo-

rate liturgy, monastic regulations

and dress, abstinences and fasts,

Index of Forbidden Books, all are

contrary, they say, to American

traditions of freedom and equality.

These same critics do not tell us

that the Catholic Church also

forbids such crimes as murder,

embezzlement, perjury, robbery,

oppression of the poor, libel and

slander, and every other social and

personal crime and wrong against

our neighbor. The Catholic Church

insists upon teaching all of God’s

laws in their full letter and spirit;

and the Church backs its teaching

with the full weight of Gods

authority. Morality has force only

insofar as it is related to God.

Without God there can be no uni-

versal standard of right and wrong.

If every individual were to be-

come the measure of his own con-

duct, moral chaos would result. The

24



increasing divorce rate with the

hardships and confusion resulting

from broken homes and the un-

precedented rise in juvenile de-

linquency already indicate the

disorder which follows any relax-

ation of God’s laws. The Church

well knows that it is not always

easy to keep God’s commandments,

but it also knows that Christ has

compassion on the burdened and

that help is never withheld from

those who ask.

The critics of the Church today

complain only against Catholic

insistence on those commandments

which they themselves have dis-

carded for economic and personal

reasons. Easy divorce is a case in

point. The Catholic Church be-

lieves that marriage is a sacrament

instituted by Christ. As such, it is

holy, and a source of grace to the

married couple. Marriage is, there-

fore, surrounded by certain safe-

guards and is indissoluble. It is the

solid foundation on which society

rests.

When the family is destroyed

by easy divorce, society and the

state suffer, not to mention the

personal sufferings of the individ-

uals involved. A half century ago,
Americans universally considered a

divorce a scandalous affair. The

present position of the Catholic

Church was quite in accord with

American tradition. Today’s advo-

cates of ’personal freedom” cannot

justly condemn the Church on the

grounds of American tradition.

They condemn the Church behind

the smokescreen of ’’un-American-

ism,” because the Catholic Church

alone challenges their propaganda

and their insistence on breaking,

and leading others to break, God’s

commandments.

God’s Law

Catholic constraints against birth

control and abortion and euthanasia

are not Vatican-inspired restrictions

of individual freedom. They are

not undemocratic. They are the

Church’s insistence on God’s law

and on man’s basic freedom and

right to live and to attain ever-

lasting happiness with God. To

those who have not the joyous

hope of heaven which Christ has

promised us, the freedom and right

to live might be considered small

gain when weighed against the dif-

ficulties of this life. It is perhaps

only because this resurging hope in

Christ’s promise is being extin-

guished that we have such pessi-

mistic associations as the Planned

Parenthood Federation and the

Euthanasia Society of America.

Fifty years ago no organization

sponsoring these aims would have

25



dared to solicit public support.

Neither birth control nor "induced

death” are a part of our American

heritage. Our grandparents, Catho-

lic and non-Catholic alike, would

have vehemently denounced them

as immoral practices which would

weaken the moral fiber of our

country. Today, the Catholic

Church still upholds these former

moral traditions of America. It

upholds them, not because they

once were universally accepted

American principles, but because

they always were the law of God.

Forbidden Books

Two favorite targets of anti-

Catholic criticism are the "Index

of Forbidden Books” and the Le-

gion of Decency rating of current

films. Catholics, it is concluded,

are not allowed to think for them-

selves. They must subject their

minds to "Vatican thought-con-

trol”; they are forbidden to read

or view anything contrary to Catho-

lic religious and moral teaching.

These restrictions, it is claimed, are

directly contrary to the American

democratic tradition of hearing all

sides of an issue before making a

choice. The argument sounds very

formidable until it is analyzed.

Catholics believe that they have,

by the very fact of their being

Catholics, chosen the truth in mat-

ters pertaining to religion and

morals and, having accepted the

truth, they prefer to stick to it. It

is a matter of life and death. The

wise driver obeys traffic laws and

submits to this trespass on his

personal liberty because he knows

these laws protect himself and his

fellowmen from serious accident.

He does not quibble about "restric-

tions” and "thought-control” by

city-ordinarce. On the contrary, he

demands those "wise constraints of

the law” which exist for the good

of society and for himself. Just so,

the wise Catholic demands and ac-

cepts those "wise constraints” of

the Catholic Church which he

knows will help him and his fellow

Catholics to attain eternal salvation.

The Catholic Church is the cus-

todian of the religion taught by

Christ. Therefore, the Church, like

a faithful steward, must preserve

intact the truths and teachings

which Christ revealed and entrust-

ed to it. It must distinguish be-

tween the true and the false. The

Church tells us, in fact, whether

or not certain ideas, philosophies,

and tendencies are in accordance

with Catholic faith and morals and

classifies them.

26



It is quite the same as our gov-

ernment’s insistence that all poisons

be clearly labelled and all medicines

and foods be carefully analyzed to

insure their purity. Poison and

pollution and misrepresentation are

forbidden by law because they

would harm the nation’s health.

Similarly the poison and pollution

of false philosophies and immoral-

ity and misrepresentation of the

real beliefs of the Catholic Church

would harm the faith of the mem-

bers of the Church. Catholics

believe that their faith is their

most precious possession. The atti-

tude of the Church is purely

protective and precautionary.

False Doctrines

It merely warns its members that

if they wish to preserve their gift

of faith in the true and complete

revelation of Christ, they must not

poison their minds with false inter-

pretations of Christ’s teachings,

and with irreverent and irreligious

and immoral reading matter.

This is not "thought-control” or

prudery; it is Christian common

sense. We cannot live and act like
Christians if we fill our minds

with thoughts that are contrary to

Christ’s teachings. If we are to

know Christ’s teachings we must

go to the best available source, the

Catholic Church, which has pre-

served these teachings from the

beginning and which has also given

us the Bible in which they are

recorded.

The Catholic Church makes no

claim to authority on any other

subject except religion — the rela-
tion between God and man and

the duties of man towards his

Creator. On all subjects other

than religion, we insist on having

the best authority, the experts who

have made the subject-matter their

life work. We demand the right to
obtain the right answers. In science,

economics, history, the arts, even

in politics, we seek the opinion of

the experts. We accept their ap-
praisal of the literature in their

respective fields.

How much more important is it
in matters relating to our eternal

welfare to obtain the opinion of the

expert on Christianity and the way

to God, to have the Catholic Church

tell us which books and ideas are in

conformity with Christ and which

are not? The Index of Forbidden

Books is a list of books which the

experts of the Catholic Church tell

us are not in conformity with the

teachings of the Catholic Church.

The lists constitute no un-American

constraint. Our own government —
national, state, and local — has laws
restricting the sale and distribution

27



of immoral books, pictures, and

performances because of the evil

that they would instill in the minds

of our citizens. Wise censorship

is protective and no infringement

on freedom of thought. Libertinism

and license are not to be confused

with true freedom and real liberty.

There is no such thing as the "free-

dom” to do what is morally wrong.

Error masquerading in the disguise

of freedom can lead only to uncer-

tainty and enslavement.

The Catholic Mass

Those who have not investigated

the full spiritual life which the

Catholic Church offers to its mem-

bers, look with the astonishment

born of ignorance and misinforma-

tion at Catholic worship and prac-

tices of devotion. What they do

not understand they often brand

as "superstitious practices,” "medie-

val,” and "un-American.” The Mass

with its beautiful liturgy and

solemn ritual, and the sacraments

of the Catholic Church have been

crudely described as "devices of

priestly control” and as "the sur-

vivals of magic in the Catholic

system.” Americans, these agitators

insist, should not be "threatened”

to go to church on Sundays; they

should not be required to subject

their private lives to "priestly

control”; as free citizens American

Catholics should abolish such "su-

perstition” and "magic.”

If in the name of religion

American citizens want to practice

voodooism, there is nothing in the

law of the United States that classi-

fies them as second-class citizens

because of their peculiar religious

practices. Constitutionally Catholics

are guaranteed freedom to practice

their religion. Their religious be-

liefs and practices have nothing to

do with their status as citizens.

Why, therefore, should Catholics

be singled out as un-American?

Why must they constantly be called
upon to defend their religion

against false attacks by bigots?

Why should the Mass, the only
form of Christian worship which

was instituted by Christ Himself,

be attacked as a form of "un-

American superstition”?

The Mass is not "magic,” but

"divine worship.” It is the very core

of the Catholic religion. If there

were no Mass, there would be no

Catholic Church.The first Mass was

offered by Christ at the Last Supper

and ratified on Calvary on Good

Friday. The tradition has been un-

broken since that first Holy

Thursday when Christ said, "Do

this in commemoration of Me.”

The simple ceremony in the Supper

Room has been enhanced and en-

28



riched and surrounded by prayers

and all the beauty of symbolic

liturgy. Aside from the divine act

of sacrifice which it is, the Mass

has been called the 'only real

immortal work of art that Western

civilization has ever produced.”

Every word and each motion

has a deep symbolic meaning as

the Mass unfolds the mystical re-

enactment of the supreme sacrifice

of Christ in atonement for our sins

and in adoration of the Godhead.

This is not magic but divine mys-

tery. To those who understand it,

participation is not a painful duty,

but a cherished privilege. Sunday

Mass is also an opportunity to

"remember the Sabbath and keep

it holy” by offering worship and

sacrifice worthy of God. Catholics

are not "forced” to go to Mass on

Sundays. The Church does not fine

or penalize or attach the property

of those who do not attend. These

were the tactics of Queen Elizabeth

and the English Reformers to

"force” the Catholic population to

attend Anglican church services.

The Catholic Church pronounces

the teachings of Christ and leaves

it up to the individual to abide by

this teaching. Priests and hierarchy

are powerless to "force” anyone to

go to Mass or to remain a Catholic

against his will.

Symbolic Vestments

The clerical and ceremonial

clothes worn by Catholic priests

and bishops at religious functions

and the vestments worn at Mass

have been scorned as "medieval

pageantry” to attract and hold the

attention of the unwary. Clerical

dress and vestments which today

distinguish the Catholic clergy and

religious from the laity, are another

strand in the continuity of the

Catholic Church and its traditions

which link it to the primitive

Church. The vestments, symbolic

of priestly virtues, represent the

ordinary clothes worn by the poor

in the days of the Roman Empire.

When the Church came up from

the catacombs and could worship

God with proper splendor and

pomp, the clothes used as vestments

were made of richer and more

suitable materials.

During the course of centuries

they became more stylized in pat-

terns and were embellished with

embroidery and lace. The habits

of monks and nuns, likewise, are,

for the most part, the traditional

garments representative of the

clothes worn at the time in which

each particular order was founded.

The more recently established con-

gregations of nuns usually wear

habits more closely resembling

modern dress.

29



With Christ, the Catholic Church

says, "Do this and you shall be

saved." And the Church also adds,

as did Christ, "If thou wilt be

perfect, go sell what thou hast . .

.

and come follow Me." This precept

is the foundation stone of Catholic

religious communities of men and

women. They live "in community,"

sharing a common mode of life

according to defined rule, and

serving a common purpose.

Convents Not Secret

There is nothing mysterious or

secret about convents and monas-

teries. Men and women become

monks and nuns because they wish

to dedicate themselves wholly to the

service of God in lives of prayer

and good works. Their vows of

personal poverty, chastity, and

obedience to their religious superi-

ors, and their religious habits set

them apart as souls who have joy-

fully and eagerly left all to follow

Christ. They have left the world

and cut off its intrusions.

They are all living a life of their

own choosing dedicated to a holy

ideal. Each one is as free to abandon

the religious life as he was free to

accept it. The doors of convents

are never barred against those who

wish to leave because they find

themselves unsuited to the religious

discipline. All the stories of

"escaped nuns" and "ex-monks"

that abound in lurid accounts of

convent life and breath-taking

escapes over convent walls are

merely so much imaginary fiction

spread abroad to arouse anti-

Catholic bigotry which feeds on

falsehoods and tall tales.

Catholic religious institutions all

serve a single purpose: to bring

their members in closer union with

Christ by imitating His life of

prayer and love of neighbor. There

is nothing un-American about

such institutions. No American is
less a citizen because he chooses

for himself a life of stricter dis-

cipline for spiritual reasons, than

is an athlete who follows a strict

regimen to make himself physi-

cally fit for a sports event. Catholic

religious are not an un-American

imposition by a foreign tyrant.

Catholic religious have written

some of the most brilliant and

courageous chapters of American

history.

The Franciscans came to Ameri-

ca with Columbus. Dominicans

and Jesuits and Franciscans were

converting and civilizing the In-

dians and exploring the new conti-

nent of America before the dawn

of Protestantism. Religious com-

munities of nuns and sisters have

served the poor, the sick, the chil-

30



dren, and the aged of the United

States since the Constitution be-

came the law of the land. In the

United States today, approximately

200,000 men and women are priests,

nuns, monks, and brothers. Their

loyalty to our country cannot be

questioned simply because they

have left all to follow Christ in

the service of their neighbor.

Without them and bereft of their

idealism, the nation would be the

poorer both spiritually and mate-

rially. They serve us well and

faithfully in holding aloft a high

moral and spirtiual standard with-

out which no nation can long exist.

Sacrifices and mortifications are

said to be un-American constraints

if they are among the laws of the

Catholic Church. Friday abstinence

and Lenten fasts are Catholic

practices which are scorned as

monstrous impositions on a free

people. Actually, the Lenten regu-

lations of the Church have nothing

to do with the Americanism of any

Catholic citizen, and they are, of

course, not binding on non-Catho-

lics.

Catholics make the sacrifice

of fasting during Lent in honor

of Christ and in commemoration

of Christ’s forty-day fast in the

desert before He started His public

life. If Christ, who became man

to be our Model and Savior, con-

sidered fasting the best preparation

for His mission, the curbing of our

appetites must possess great spirit-

ual value. Through the annual

Lenten fast, the Catholic Church

emphasizes the necessity of self-

discipline as it was first empha-

sized by Christ. Self-discipline is

a mark of adulthood. It is indis-

pensable to society. It is even

more essential to a full Christian

and spiritual life. If we wish to

be Christians we must follow in

the steps of Christ — we must
"deny ourselves” and "take up our

cross.” The Lenten fast in prepa-

ration for the glorious feast of

Easter helps us to fulfill these

precepts. Abstinence from meat on

Fridays is a reverential sacrifice

offered to God by Catholics out

of respect for Christ who made the

supreme sacrifice for us on the

civilization is rooted in Christ.

Our heritage is Christian, and with-

out Christ it would be unthinkable.

His life and death were the great-

est single factor in history. Is it not

fitting that we, as Christians, make

a small sacrifice in His honor and

in gratitude for His immeasurable

sacrifice for us?

All of these Catholic practices

when properly understood have a

deep religious meaning and bring

us into closer contact with God.

31



They are not just so many arbitrary

restrictions and fetters binding an

ignorant and unsuspecting group

of people, by threat of the eternal

flames of hell, into submission to

a man ruling a small state in Rome.

Without constraints there would be

no civilization — the law of the
jungle would prevail. Uninhibited

freedom for each, means freedom

for none. It is only because men

acknowledge a higher law above

the state, and binding in conscience,

that civil law is acceptable to the

citizenry. The laws of, the Catholic

Church — the teachings of Christ
and the administrative and juridical

regulations of the Church — are not
in opposition or in conflict with

basic American traditions and

principles.

Freedom of conscience, the

freedom to do what we know to

be right, has been translated by

some enthusiasts into freedom to

do as they please without reference

to moral right or wrong. God has

been outlawed by a small, noisy

crowd of secularists who are at-

tempting to interpret Americanism

without the Christian tradition

which is at its roots. Today the

Catholic Church is attacked and

vilified because it alone will not

whittle down the teachings of

Christ to conform to the modern

pagan ideal that man is an end in

himself. The Catholic Church is

condemned because it still holds

God above man and God’s law as

the supreme law for all mankind.

THE CHURCH AND TOTALITARIANISM

God established the Church and the State as distinct societies,

each with a definite function in regard to the individual. He entrusted

the spiritual direction of men to the Church; their temporal welfare

He placed in the hands of civil authority. Throughout history at-

tempts have been made to disturb the divinely ordained harmony

between the two by subjecting one to the other. But never, until

modern times, have the two been identified as one. The modern

totalitarian State has attempted to merge the Church with the State.

Politically, the aim of the totalitarian State is a strong central

government with complete control of all the social and private acti-

vities of the individual; religion, education, marriage, labor and

finance. This political framework of totalitarianism is derived from

a philosophy of society that is fundamentally anti-Catholic and ir-

religious. It regards the State as a divine entity possessing the divine

attributes of absolute autonomy and independence; it holds that

from the State, his creator, man receives his life, his rights, his destiny.

— From National Catholic Almanac, 1952

32



What About Separation

of Church and State?

The Catholic Church is ac-

cused in the United States

of trying to set aside what

has been called the princi-

ple of "separation of church

and state.”

This charge is amazing

not only for its untruth, but

for the historic evidence

against those who make it.

Church and state were

never united in one government

until the rise of Protestantism. For

the first time in the history of

Europe since the emperors of pa-

gan Rome had proclaimed them-

selves objects of worship, church

and state were united in the per-

son of Henry VIII. Protestant

rulers of northern Europe were

quick to follow his lead.

The Church of England was

established not by Catholics, but

by Protestants and then, as now,

it united the church and the state.

The majority of the citizens of the

United States in 1790 were An-

glicans or Protestants of other

denominations, and when they

clamored for separation of church

and state it was a separation from

Protestant, not Catholic, leaders

which they sought.

Until the Reformation, Catholic-

ism was the only religious

faith practiced in Europe.

And Church and state — ex-
cept within the borders of

the Papal States in Central

Italy — were separate and
distinct. The king was the

head of civil affairs; the

Pope the head of religious

affairs. Each was independ-

ent and supreme in his own

sphere.

The ideal balance was not

always maintained, as the tem-

poral sovereigns all too often

sought to usurp the powers of

jurisdiction over purely church

affairs. The absolute power of

kings was held in check by the

insistence of the Church on the

priority of the moral law. If a mon-

arch overstepped his power, he

could be declared a tyrant and his

subjects no longer owed him

allegiance.

An example of how this worked
is to be found in the case of King

John of England. It was because

of the refusal of the Catholic

Church to sanction his abuses of

power, that the Catholic Barons of

England were able to force John

in 1215 to sign the Magna Charta,

one of the greatest political docu-

ments.

33



The unity of Church and state

which existed prior to the Refor-

mation was a unity of belief in the

supreme authority of Christ and

His commandments as taught by

the Catholic Church. Heresy was

as much a threat to the states of

Europe in those times as is Com-

munism today, and rebellion and

anarchy were the invariable results

of heresy.

Religious Wars

And anarchy was the first result

of Luther’s apostasy — the bloody

Peasants’ Revolt in Germany. Simi-

lar revolts followed Henry VIII's

break with the Papacy, and there

followed more than a century of

religious wars which were not

solved by the rulers’ assumption of

the right to decide the religion of

their people.

The King of England was the

head of the Church of England and

every subject of the crown was

obliged to be a member of the

Anglican Church. Lutheranism was

the established religion of Sweden,

Norway and Denmark, and the

king of each country was the

absolute ruler of the church. The

King of Holland was head of the

state church, the Dutch Reformed.

Germany, then still a disunited

country composed of many inde-

pent principalities, was a patch-

work of religious affiliations ac-

cording to the beliefs of local

princes. With the rise of Prussia

in the 18th century, the national

church became a blending of

Lutheranism and Calvinism under

the King of Prussia. These were

state controlled and state financed

in much the same manner as the

national churches in the other

Protestant countries of Europe.

The body of religious belief held

by the Anglican Church was de-

creed by the king and "by law

established.” Attendance at service

was enforced by threats of fines,

confiscation of property, imprison-

ment and even death. Self-imposed

exile was the only way out for

those seeking religious freedom,

and the Puritans, Quakers and

others fleeing from Protestant

church-state tyranny fled Europe

for America.

But although each group found

freedom in America to practice its

own form of worship, it did not

grant the same freedom to others.

Only in the colony of Maryland,

founded by the Catholic Lord

Baltimore, was religious toleration

granted unconditionally to all Chris-

tians. Later, when the Protestant

non-conformists were banished

from Anglican-controlled Virginia,

they moved to Maryland and gained

34



political dominance. One of their

first acts was to impose political

restrictions on Catholics and to

establish their own denomination

as the state religion of Maryland.

Colonial Disunity

It will be seen from this that

governmental "establishment of re-

ligion" in the United States was a

political practice introduced not by

Catholics, but by the English

Protestant colonists.

When the 13 original colonies

sought to unite into a single na-

tional unity, they were faced with

a confusion of numerous state re-

ligions. The exigencies of the

Revolutionary War with a Con-

tinental army and Catholic allies

had created an improved spirit of

religious toleration, but each of the

colonies had suffered greatly for

religious freedom and had no in-

tention of surrendering this free-

dom to a Federal religious estab-

lishment. The only solution was to

deny the Federal government the

right to establish a national church,

or to interfere with the free exer-

cise of religion.

Church and State

It was not fear of the Catholic

Church which gave birth to the

principle of separation of church

and state as implied in the Con-

stitution of the United States. On

the contrary, it was the distrust

of Protestants toward the English

pattern of church establishment

which brought about the constitu-

tional provision with respect to the

freedom of religion.

This constitutional provision

does not mean, as is often implied,

that the government of the United

States must be indifferent to re-

ligion. The principle of separation

of church and state was provided

to prevent the establishment of a

national, tax-supported church to

which at least a majority of the

citizens would owe membership.

It never was intended to divorce

the national government from re-

ligion to the extent that is some-

times maintained.

As a matter of fact, since the

very first Congress, the United

States Government has been voting

funds to support religion ... for

chaplains in both houses of the

Congress, for missionary societies

to "Christianize" the Indians; for

chapels and religious services at

the military and naval academies,

and for chaplains in the armed

services in every war.

All religious institutions are tax-

exempt and religious periodicals

receive postal benefits, which are

concessions that could not be al-

lowed if the United States govern-

ment were to be completely in-

different to religion. There has

never been, however, a complete

separation of church and state in

the strict letter of the phrase.

The United States government

has been benevolent in its relations

with all denominations, but partial

to none. It has never attempted to

interfere with the beliefs of any

religious groups, excepting the

early Mormon practice of polyga-

amy. Absolute toleration and

neutrality on religious issues was

the only formula for preventing

religious feuds, disunity and big-

35



otry. It was a separation of church

and state born of the need of

tolerance of the multiple Christian

sects.

This religious neutrality had the

full endorsement and support of

the first Catholic bishop in the

United States and of every bishop

who has succeeded him. The

bishops always have upheld the

principle of separation of church

and state as the only possible

functional principle for a nation

of so many faiths.

OK With Catholics
The basic political documents

on which the United States system

of government rests, however,

recognize human dependence on

God and also the Catholic political

theory that authority is delegated

to the state by the people and is not

an absolute authority. Beyond this,

the Catholic Church and the Catho-

lic bishops have never sought to go.

Never in the history of the nation

has any Catholic bishop ever so

much as implied that special privi-

leges be granted to Catholics, or

that the Catholic Church be estab-

lished as the religion of the

United States.

Despite these facts, all the talk

we hear nowadays is directed

against the Catholic Church, as if

Catholics are trying to destroy the

principle of church and state

separation; and as if the First

Amendment had been enacted to

prevent such very action by the

Catholic Church. On the contrary,
the First Amendment was approved

to prevent the predominance of

any one of the Protestant denomi-

nations. The Catholic Church never

even entered into the picture. What

the founding fathers feared — and
legislated against — was an estab-
lished church like the Church of

England, with which they all were

familiar and because of which

many had fled their native land

to come to America.

No Conflict

The state and the religious

bodies of the United States exist

on friendly terms, each assisting

the other and neither trespassing

on the other’s rights. It is this

traditional custom of mutual re-

spect which has made the principle

of separation of church and state

feasible, and a bond of unity in the

nation. It is a principle which the

Catholic Church always has staunch-

ly upheld.

Despite the often reiterated

declarations of the United States

bishops to this effect, and despite

the evidence of Catholic history in

the United States, critics of the

Church continually strive to create

suspicion as to Catholic ‘motives”

with respect to separation of church

and state. To support their false

assertions, they even seek evidence

outside the United States, one of

their favorite citations being the

Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, in 1884.

The Syllabus

The Syllabus was a listing for

the guidance of the clergy, of 80

points of belief advocated by

atheistic free-thinkers in Europe

which were in conflict with Catho-

lic teaching. One of these errors

was the assertion that ‘‘The Church

36



must be separated from the State,

and the State from the Church."

The error was in the declaration

that Church and State must always,

and in all things, be separated.

This error was advocated by anti-

clerical forces hostile to all matters

religious and spiritual, and was not

the same principle of Church and

State separation as that prevailing

in the United States. Any religious

body which acknowledges the su-

premacy of God would feel com-

pelled to condemn, as the Catholic

Church did, the atheism and

hostility in the proposition of

separation as advanced by these

19th century Continental free-

thinkers. The proposition declared

the absolute supremacy of the

State, and it was this principle

which was condemned in the

Syllabus.

The Syllabus by itself would

have been meaningless, even to

the Catholic clergy of the time,

if the condemnation it contained

were not fully elucidated else-

where. The Syllabus, as already

mentioned, was only a listing of

errors — not a full explanation.
Despite this, critics of the Church

seek to use it as evidence of Catho-

lic opposition to the principle of

Church and State separation in the

United States, to which it had

utterly no relation.

Phoney Charges

Critics also point to the position

of the Catholic Church in Spain as

an evidence of opposition to the

separation principle. This "evi-

dence," like that of the Syllabus,

is actually no evidence at all and

to use it as such is equally dis-

honest.

Because the majority of its

citizens are Catholic, and want it

that way, Spain supports religious

schools and conforms many of its

laws to the moral teachings of the

Church. It does not follow, how-

ever, that the Catholic Church

gives blanket approval to every-

thing Spain does.

The Church in Spain has no

authority to limit or restrict the

government, and the government

has no more authority over the

Church than has the President of

the United States. The Spanish

hierarchy exercises no political

power or authority, and whatever

predominant privileges the Catho-

lic Church enjoys in Spain are due

to the fact that Spain is tradition-

ally Catholic and the choice of

their Faith is a matter of the free

will of the Spanish people.

In all honesty, the position of

the Catholic Church in Spain has

no bearing whatever on the posi-

tion of the Church in America.

While the Church is inflexible in

all matters of faith and morals,

it has no dogmatic principles as

to the relationship of Church and

State. The governmental traditions

and religious affiliations of each

country must be its own guide.

The Church regards the principle

of separation of Church and State

in the United States to be best for

the United States, where the

people of many faiths must live

in social harmony. But in Catholic

countries such as Spain, where the

great majority of the people are

Catholic by tradition and choice,

37



the situation is altogether different

and not at all comparable to the

situation in the United States.

The state which the Catholic

Church might consider ideal would

be one in which the laws of gov-

ernment are in complete confor-

mity with Catholic teaching and

Catholic moral law, with all citizens

members of the Catholic Church

and all rulers of the State, Catholics

of the highest moral and civil

integrity. The actual form of gov-

ernment in such case, wouldn’t

make much difference, whether

republican or monarchical, so long

as the people had a voice in public

policies affecting their welfare.

Respect For Law

But the Church is realistic and,

in its mission of saving souls,

must deal with actual conditions

and not with a utopian or ideal

state. It must, therefore, respect

and uphold governmental customs,

laws, and traditions of each na-

tion. The relations between the

Church and the State, therefore,

vary according to the traditions and

religious affiliation of the popula-

tion. The Church has no more right

to say to Spain: "You must adopt

a republican form of government,"

or "You must adopt Americas

democratic principles," than it has

to say to America: "You must have

a totalitarian government.'”

In only one respect will the

Catholic Church ever come into

conflict with government. That is

in case a government should seek

to usurp the right, and obstruct

the holy purpose of the Church to

teach the Gospel of Christ. The

Church will not relinquish its

position as the true Church found-

ed by Our Lord, nor will it ever

surrender to any State its convic-

tion in the preeminence of God

over the State. It takes this position

in every State, and the nature of

the government makes no differ-

ence. The Church seeks no political

aggrandizement — only the right to

teach and to protect its children

from error.

The Catholic Church is not, as

some of its critics say, a political

institution. It is a corporate religi-

ous body founded by Christ Him-

self, which has been vigorous and

strong in its work for nearly 2,000

years, during which governments

of many types have changed and

empires have fallen into decay. Its

mission is purely spiritual. It does

not seek special privileges, in the

United States or elsewhere. Instead,

the Church uses its spiritual influ-

ence only for the recognition of

moral principles and the advance-

ment of the common welfare. This

is in accordance with the American

principle of respect for religion,

which is the cornerstone of the

principle of separation of Church

and State.

To say otherwise is to deny the

plain evidence of Catholic history

in America.

38



iLlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllflllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll^

|
Does The Catholic Church

§

I "Meddle” in Politics? !

illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

There is a growing secular

trend in America and else-

where to consider Democ-

racy not as a system of

government but as a reli-

gion. Democracy, with the

slogan of “Freedom,” is

substituted as the ultimate

goal of right living and as

the only “way of life.” For

some, Democracy has be-

come a complete religious faith.

Every question, we are told, should

be solved “the democratic way.” It

matters not whether the question

be religious, moral, social, or

purely political. Let the majority

decide, these advocates of the re-

ligion of Democracy insist, and the

issue will be settled.

Masquerading in democratic

dress, this religion of Democracy

preaches freedom for the individ-

ual. It abhors authority. It denies

all absolutes except in the fields

of science and technology. For its

exponents, the worship of God

has become subordinate to govern-

ment, and true religion is super-

seded by humanitarianism as a

sort of social agency of the govern-

ment. The moral principles which

are the basis of all true govern-

ment and law, are ridiculed as

iiiiiiimiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifi?

medieval twaddle. These

heralds of the religion of

Democracy are merely prop-

agandizing another form of

statism, a variation of Fas-

cism and Communism in

which the state replaces

God, and man is urged to

look upon the state as the

supreme good.

This religion of Democ-

racy is a perversion of true Democ-

racy and especially of American

Democracy. Democracy is not a “way

of life.” It is not a religion. It is a

system of elective representative

government for the welfare of the

people. American Democracy is an

excellent system of government.

It is a system of government that

has been devised to harmonize

mans individual freedom with

social order. This system of govern-

ment rests its powers firmly on the

natural dignity and rights of man.

This natural dignity and these

rights are contingent on the moral

law which is binding on all men

everywhere. The American Dec-

laration of Independence clearly

expresses this dependence on the

“Laws of Nature and of Nature’s

God.” It also definitely states that

the purpose of government is to

39



secure the temporal welfare of

man. And the Constitution of the

United States reaffirms this basic

purpose of good government.

Those who have elevated the

democratic system of government

to the status of a religion demand

that the worship of God and

morality (the relation of man to

God) be made subservient to the

state. Religion, they insist, must

be rigorously confined within the

four walls of a church. Religion,

they tell us, has nothing to do with

morality.

Majority Vote

Every issue on which there is

more than one opinion must

be decided by the vote of the

majority. Any church which dares

to protest against their views on

proposed legislation is promptly

denounced as interfering with

politics and breaking down the

mythical wall of separation be-

tween Church and State which

they, and not the Constitution, have

erected. It is these self-appointed

protagonists of the new religion of

Democracy who, disregarding the

long respectful and mutual inter-

play of religion and government

which always has been a part of

the American system of democracy,

are today denouncing the Catho-

lic Church as a political power

bent on seeking its own ends at

the expense of "Democracy” and

"Freedom.”

The outcry against ecclesiastical

interference is directed solely at

the Catholic Church. There is no

protest against the Baptist and

Methodist ministers who urge their

congregations to vote against race

tracks because these ministers be-

lieve that betting is immoral.

There is no protest against those

Protestant Temperance organiza-

tions whose members, believing

that the consumption of alcoholic

beverages is immoral, seek again

to impose their code of morality

upon the nation. Yet, when Catho-

lics raise their voice against pro-

posed state legislation which the

entire Christian world always has

condemned as immoral, sinister

political motives are immediately

imputed to the Catholic hierarchy

and the unfounded rumor is

quickly circulated that Catholic

priests are directing the vote from

the secrecy of the confessional.

Slanders and Libels

The Catholic Church is de-

nounced as a subversive power-

seeking force that is plotting behind

closed doors to undermine "Ameri-

can Freedom.” Why are these
slanders and libels circulated? Be-

cause the Catholic Church is the

only church which fearlessly up-

holds the moral law as laid down

by God in the.Ten Commandments

and as reiterated and taught by

Christ. The Catholic Church is the

only church which insists that there

is a law above the State which is

binding on all men everywhere and

which is binding also on the State.

When, therefore, Catholics use

their influence as citizens to argue

and vote against proposed legisla-

tion on divorce and on birth

control, they are acting as every

40



conscientious citizen should act

who believes that the laws of God

should govern his life. When

Catholics publicly express their

disapproval and withdraw their

patronage from dramatic entertain-

ment which makes light of moral

concepts, they are not imposing

the teachings of their Church on

the non-Catholic population of

America.

Not Political

They are not acting as a political

entity to force their views on

others. They are acting primarily

for their own moral protection.

When a Catholic clergyman or a

Catholic organization protests to a

newspaper or a periodical against

some gross misrepresentation of

the Catholic Church or against

a wrong interpretation of the J

Catholic point of view, there is

immediate protests that the Catho-

lic hierarchy is trying to "gain

control of the press” in order to

gain control of the country. Ac-

tually, Catholics, like everyone else,

insist only that their views and

their teachings be reported ac-

curately and without distortion.

The Catholic Church is not

concerned with purely political

issues. The administration of civil

affairs is the business of govern-

ment, and the Catholic Church has

no desire to dictate party policies

or to interfere in any way. 'On all
such questions the Catholic Church

is neutral and silent. The Vatican

is aloof concerning the internal

political affairs of the United States.

And so is the Catholic hierarchy.

This has been stated time and again

by officials at the Vatican and by

American bishops. The Pope seeks

no political power in the United

States. He sponsors no political

party, supports no political candi-

date. Neither do the Catholic

bishops or priests. All Catholic

priests are forbidden to speak about

politics from the pulpit. There

never has been any Catholic

political party in the United States,

nor any attempt to form one on

either the state or national level,

although more than one political

party has been cemented together

with the mortar of anti-Catholic

bigotry.

Nothing Compulsory

Nevertheless, we are told that

the Catholic Church seeks to im-

pose its code of morality and its

beliefs upon the people of the

United States. If by this the anti-

Catholic critics accuse the Catholic

Church of desiring all men to par-

take of the spiritual and sacra-

mental riches of the one true

Church founded by Christ, the

charge would be true. Christ called

all men to become members of

His Mystical Body, the Catholic

Church; and He commanded His

apostles to "teach all nations.” But

neither Christ, nor the Catholic

Church, has "sought to impose”

Christs teachings on those who

would not accept them freely. The

critics of the Catholic Church

seem unable to understand the

spiritual motivation of the Church.

For them even the moral law has

become the business of politics.

And so they tell us that the Catho-

lic hierarchy dictate to the faithful

41



as to how they should vote. In

illustration, they point to the

referendum on birth control which

was held in the state of Massa-

chusetts in 1948. The Bishops of

Massachusetts declared themselves

against the proposed legislation

calling for a repeal of a state law

which prohibited the dissemination

of birth-control information, and

they urged all right-thinking people

to vote for the defeat of the

measure.

A Moral Question

The issue was to be decided by

majority vote and was not a purely

political measure, but a moral

question. Catholics are not alone

in believing that birth con-

trol is contrary to Gods law.

Therefore, they are in conscience

bound to condemn the practice

and when the question is forced

upon them in the polls, Catholics

and others vote according to con-

science. They are merely doing

what every honest citizen should

do. It was not the Catholic hier-

archy of Massachusetts who placed

the birth-control referendum on the

1948 ballot sheets. It was intro-

duced by those who sought to

change the existing law. The

Catholics of Massachusetts, bishops,

priests, and laity, did not impose

their "code of morality” on the

population of Massachusetts. They

used their rights as citizens to pre-

sent their views and to vote ac-

cording to the dictates of their

conscience.

If moral questions are dragged

into the political arena and are

made subject to the decision of the

majority, these questions, like

purely political matters, must be

open to public discussion. Why,

then, are Catholics accused of

meddling in politics if they public-

ly present their views and cast

their ballots in a free election

concerning a moral issue? If, as in

Massachusetts in 1948, the ma-

jority decision coincides with the

teachings of the Catholic Church

(teachings which throughout

America were universally held to

be right until about fifty years

ago
) ,

it cannot truthfully be said

that the Catholic Church is impos-

ing its doctrines on the nation.

Against Easy Divorce

The divorce issue is similar to

the birth-control question. Catho-

lics have never initiated divorce

laws nor proposed any changes in

the existing state laws. But this

does not mean that Catholics, as

citizens, are indifferent to the

question of divorce when it is

thrust upon them in state elections.

If divorce were not an evil, Christ

would not have condemned it in

such uncompromising terms. The

inherent evil of divorce has wide

repercussions in community life,

as has any other moral breakdown.

Catholics, therefore, view the whole

question of divorce from Christ’s

point of view. In conscience, they

protest and vote against "easy

divorce laws” that would ultimately

bring hardship to every community.

As citizens of a democracy it is

their duty to vote for what they

believe to be the best interests of

their country.

42



The sweeping accusation has

been propagated that every Catho-

lic organization and the entire

Catholic educational system have

only one purpose, namely, the sub-

verting of American Democracy.

The accusers point at the Catholic

War Veterans, Catholic Trade Un-

ion groups, the Legion of Decency,

Catholic Firemens’ Associations,

Holy Name Societies, Catholic

Boy Scouts, etc. These are cited as

political pressure groups whose sole

purpose is to pave the way for

the domination of the United

States by the Catholic Church. The

sole purpose of every Catholic

organization in the world is to

bring its members into closer

unity with God and to study and

practice the Christian principles

which should guide every aspect

of our lives.

"The Way . .
”

For Catholics — and for all sin-
cere Christians — Christ’s teachings
are vital and meaningful. They

penetrate all of men’s activities.

Christ’s words were not spoken

merely to re-echo behind the walls

of a church on Sundays and to be

forgotten when the services were

ended. Christ’s principles are ap-

plicable to every problem that

arises, to every issue that faces us.

These principles apply as aptly to

the standards that should govern

social and industrial relations and

good government, as they do to

individual conduct. It is by going

to Christ that we shall find "the

Way, the Truth, and the Life”

that should guide all our motives

and all our dealings with our fei-

lowmen.

It is, therefore, with Christ and

in defense of Christian principles

that Catholic organizations will

voice their censure of proposals,

trends, pending legislation, movies,

etc., which desregard the moral

law and the principles of social,

political, and individual justice

on which society and the nation

rests. These Catholic organizations

are acting as do thousands of

non-Catholic groups which pass

resolutions, sign petitions, and

register protest against measures

which they consider to be harmful

to society. Group protest is a

thoroughly American tradition. It

is basic to a democracy. It is the

only way that public opinion can

be expressed and that, as befits

a democracy, all sides of a political

question can be heard.

Oppose Immorality

All sincere people agree that

the State has no inherent right to

legislate in opposition to the moral

law. No act of Congress or of

state legislatures has the right to

legalize murder or theft or dis-

honesty under any disguise. Legis-

lation is not necessarily law because

it has received the greatest number

of votes, but because it conforms

to objective standards higher than

the State and higher than man.

Laws will not be respected unless

they conform to these standards.

This is a political axiom basic to

the American system of democracy

that has been reiterated again and

again ever since the Founders of

43



the Republic met in convention to

draft the Constitution. More re-

cently this political axiom has

been best expressed by President

Calvin Coolidge: "Men do not

make laws. They do but discover

them. Laws must be justified by

something more than the will of

the majority. They must rest on

the eternal foundation of righte-

ousness.” Chief Justice Charles

Evans Hughes enunciated the same

principle from the Supreme Court

bench: "In the forum of con-

science, duty to a higher moral

power than the State has always

been maintained.”

This is, in substance, the teach-

ing of the Catholic Church bearing

upon the body politic: Both the

State and the individual should

recognize the abiding objective

law from which proceed our rights

and dignity as individuals.

God’s Moral Law

It is the duty of religion to teach

and uphold Gods moral law. The

Catholic Church is not imposing

its beliefs upon the nation because

Catholic citizens consider the

moral implications of political

affairs. Morality must be associated

with religion. George Washington

aptly phrased this truth in his

Farewell Address: "Of all the dis-

positions and habits which lead

to political prosperity, Religion

and Morality are indispensible sup-

ports.” ". . . Reason and experience

both forbid us to expect that

national morality can prevail in

exclusion of religious principle.”

In another address, he reiterated

the same thought. . . Religion

and morality,” he said, "are the

essential pillars of society.” Di-

vorce ethics from God, and

morality rapidly deteriorates into

the expression of individual whim

or demagogic-controlled opinion.

When the higher law is disregard-
ed and every human problem be-

comes the business of politics,

then we shall no longer be a nation

of free and responsible citizens. If

the new religion of Democracy is

permitted to supersede the Ameri-

can system of democratic govern-

ment, there will be no check upon

the power of the State or the will

of the majority. We will become
a chaotic mass of individuals each

seeking his own liberty, each fol-

lowing his impulses in a society

which countenances no authority

except majority rule.

Uphold Constitution

This dictatorship by the masses,

as the French Revolution illustrated,

merely opens the doors to dictator-

ship by the most able exploiter of

the masses. This is what every

patriotic and loyal American should

fear. It is only by insisting upon a

higher law which binds in con-

science that we can avoid the

danger of succumbing to state

absolutism. This is the political

role assumed by the Catholic

Church. It is not self-seeking. It is

advisory. Far from trying to subvert

the American system of democratic

government, the Catholic vote,

guided by moral principles, is a

bulwark against state absolutism

and against individual anarchy.

When United States Catholics vote,

they always vote in favor of the

Constitution of the United States.

44



Learn All About

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

By Mail ... At No Cost!

You can easily investigate Catholic faith and worship

in the privacy of your home.

Just send us your name and address and advise that

you desire to learn about the Church by mail.

We will send you an interesting course of instruc-
tion which is short, yet complete.

The book explaining Catholic faith and worship is

written in an easy-to-understand form, and there are

six tests sheets to be checked. There is no writing to

do, and nobody will call on you unless you request it.

You merely mail your marked test sheets to us. We
correct them and return them to you. This enables

you to determine how well you understand the book

and on what points further explanation by mail may

help you.

There is no cost to you, no obligation.

Write today to:

Supreme Council

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Religious Information Bureau

4422 LINDELL BLVD.

ST. LOUIS 8, MO.

Imprimatur:

4*JOSEPH E. RITTER

Archbishop of St. Louis

St. Louis, August 13, 1952

Published in United States of America

2nd Reprinting August, 1954