Why Roman Catholicism Is Opposed To Free Speech

Why Roman Catholicism Is Opposed To Free Speech
by
Red Beetle
Wednesday, December 13th 2006

Introduction

The United States Constitution has many enemies. One of the most dangerous enemies of the U.S. Constitution is a general attitude of disinterest among the common people of this country. Rather than study civics, history, or the political philosophy of our founding fathers, most young people today are interested in acquiring the latest video game system or cell phone. Rather than understanding the Bible, The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, or the Constitution of this nation, most adults seem more interested in tabloid news or the latest “reality” television show. Instead of studying deductive logic, the formal fallacies of argument, and the informal fallacies of argument, most people today prefer to busy themselves in an plethora of various kinds of sports and entertainment.

The decisions people make, decisions made every day, all have consequences. The decision to mindlessly go through life entertaining oneself to death has a most dangerous consequence. It has the perilous consequence of being or becoming ignorant. Make no mistake about it, our democratic-republic will not exist long with a general population that is ignorant or apathetic of constitutional principles. The well known Deist Thomas Jefferson knew as much. Jefferson eloquently stated, “"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384). Ignorance and apathy towards our constitutional ideology are but a few of our enemies today. Fact is, the United States of America has many enemies, some foreign and some among us. These enemies wait patiently for the opportunity to overtake our nation, and change the political structure of our nation from a free democratic-republic into a socialistic-fascist tyranny. Having said that, if the people of this nation are not well educated, then the takeover of this country will most likely come from within, rather than from without.

The present writer will tell you who the most dangerous political enemy is to the United States of America, and the revelation of that enemy may surprise you. But, it will do little good to be able to identify a few enemies and reject them, unless one can recognize and define the true principles of a free democratic-republic. How can a person recognize a counterfeit $20.00 bill, if that person doesn’t know how to identify an actual $20.00 bill? Once a person knows what the truth is, then spotting the lie is much easier. Of course, we will have to be able to make use of a few basic laws of deductive logic, such as the law of identity, for then we will have the means to apply the negative test for truth. For example, knowing the truth of any principle is a great thing, but then it also helps to know that a thing can not be itself and its opposite at the same time and in the same way. A thing is itself, and not its opposite. If the reader finds such noble teachings of logic confusing or boring, then I would ask the reader for some patience, for there are many today who will not hesitate to engage in what the political writer Orwell called “double-speak.” The strategy of ‘double-speak’ is to hopelessly confuse the dull minded crowds and gain control of their minds. Orwell, to be sure, was not the first to come up with this deceptive strategy. No, it has been around for ages. It is as old as the lie itself. The idea of confusing a situation to such an extent that the people will simply give up on obtaining certain knowledge has been attempted many times in the history of politics.

Free Speech and the Protestant Reformation

One principle of a free democratic-republic is the unalienable right to Free Speech. The realization of the political and religious power of Free Speech within government comes from the Protestant Reformation. The classic historical example of Free Speech destroying the forces of tyranny is found with the man Martin Luther. In the 16th century an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther stood alone at the Diet of Worms and spoke out against the tyranny of Roman Catholicism. Refusing to be silent, proclaiming that the Bible alone was the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, even though such an act might lead to his assassination or execution, his courageous speech would set off a chain reaction which would free Europe from the ignorance and despotism of the Dark Ages. Martin Luther demonstrated that one man can make a difference. Again, the speech of one man can make a difference, it can change the world for good. Luther’s exercise of Free Speech demonstrated the importance of proclaiming one’s earnest belief in the truth, despite the grave danger that withstood him. For an excellent book on the life of Martin Luther, I recommend reading the classic biography entitled “Here I Stand: A Life Of Martin Luther” by Roland H. Bainton.

Throughout the Dark Ages there was an endless train of persons accused of heresy. Once these persons were labeled as heretics by the Roman Catholic Holy Inquisition, they were then submitted to the most inhuman forms of torture ever invented by sinful mankind. The torture was made to last as long as possible, for the sake of forcing a confession of repentance, before the victim would finally be murdered by the Roman Catholic Church. In many cases, people were tortured and murdered for simply voicing opposition to the Vatican or their doctrine. Some victims of the Roman Catholic Holy Inquisition were as young as 12 years old. So, let us remember that Free Speech is something that sometimes can cost us our very lives. Being killed for speaking freely, for proclaiming the truth, is nothing new in this world. The idea of using violence to silence the critics of the Roman Catholic Church, as one can see, is nothing new either. The threat of violence against any who would speak out against the Roman Catholic Church was, and in some countries today still is, a powerful tool to dissuade the people from voicing their opinions and speaking out against papal abuses and papal doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church has always known that if one can suppress the public speech of the people and silence opposing ideas, then the opposing arguments may eventually become contained, forgotten, or even extinct. The absence of Free Speech means that the fascist ruling class does not have to intelligently defend their ideas or actions to the people of the land.

Martin Luther was not the first person to challenge the erroneous religious and political system of Roman Catholicism. In the 9th century, for example, a man named Gotteschalk was arrested and eventually murdered by the Catholic Church for teaching the doctrine of absolute double predestination. These doctrines of predestination would later come to be fully explained in the works of men like John Calvin, Jerome Zanchius, and Gordon H. Clark. So strong was Gotteschalk’s arguments for God choosing to save some and reject others for salvation, the Roman Catholic Church decided to close his mouth by force and make Gotteschalk disappear. When Gotteschalk was sent to prison for freely speaking his mind on these religious matters, we are told that a letter went with him informing his captives: "We send to you this vagabond monk, in order that you may shut him up in his convent, and prevent him from propagating his false, heretical, and scandalous doctrine" (Hanko, Herman, Portraits Of Faithful Saints, Reformed Free Publishing Association, Grandville, Mi., 1999, page 70). Gotteschalk was but one victim of the Roman Catholic Church during the Dark ages. Another notable person, who suffered and was murdered for his free speech, was John Huss. Let’s take a look at this man, who came about 100 years before Martin Luther.

John Huss exercised Free Speech in 15th century Europe, and he was, as a result of his use of Free Speech, murdered by the Roman Catholic Church-state. While John Huss’ life was being threatened for speaking his mind, he wrote some inspiring letters concerning his situation. One part of a letter Huss wrote reads, “It is better to die well than to live badly. We dare not sin to avoid punishment of death” (History Of The Christian Church, Vol. 6, page 367). Rather than be censored from freely speaking the truth, Huss thought it better to die. Huss, like many martyrs, preferred death the alternative of losing his freedom. In the 18th century the Calvinist Patrick Henry, one of America’s greatest statesmen, echoed Huss’ example when he proclaimed, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” Just what was it that this John Huss, one little man, was saying publicly about the Roman Catholic Church-state that would cost him his life? Phillip Schaff gives us a good summary of those teachings which would eventually bring about Huss’ murder. Schaff writes, “The Holy Catholic Church is the body or congregation of all the predestinate, the dead, the living and those yet to be. The term ‘catholic’ means universal. The unity of the Church is a unity of predestination and of blessedness, a unity of faith, charity and grace. The Roman Pontiff and the cardinals are not the Church. The Church can exist without cardinals and a pope, and in fact for hundreds of years there were no cardinals. As for the position Christ assigned to Peter, Huss affirmed that Christ called Himself the rock, and the Church is founded on Him by virtue of predestination. In view of Peter’s clear and positive confession, “the Rock--Petra--said to be Peter--Petro--‘I say unto thee, thou art Peter, that is, a confessor of the true Rock which Rock I am.’ And upon the Rock, that is, myself, I will build this Church.” Thus Huss placed himself firmly on the ground taken by Augustine in his Retractations. Peter never was the head of the Holy Catholic Church” (History Of The Christian Church, Vol. 6, page 368). Huss, sounding very much like a Calvinist concerning predestination, most likely sealed his own death when he began to deny “the pope’s right to go to war or to make appeal to the secular sword” (History Of The Christian Church, Vol. 6, page 368). Huss was directly challenging the pope’s authority and right to rule over the nations and to force nations to go to war for him.

Today, many do not realize that Roman Catholicism still teaches the idea that the pope is the supreme and absolute ruler of all governments in the world. And, because of this, he has the right to declare war on any nation which should opposes him or his interests. The only reason the pope is not openly demanding these authorities to be recognized at this present time is because he does not have control over several key nations in the world today (the U. S. A. for example). If the Western nations ever come to to the point of consenting to this papal authority, then people will be publicly reintroduced to the idea of global domination on the part of the Vatican. Not a new idea, but one that was forged during the Dark Ages by such counterfeit documents like the ‘Donation of Constantine (circa. 750-800 A.D.).” All this in mind, the Roman Catholic Church-state patiently waits for the time when it can once again call the Western nations to rise up and crusade against the enemies of Roman Catholicism.

Opposition to the pope’s political and religious authority led to John Huss’ murder in 1415. Dutch Calvinist Herman Hanko tells us that the Roman Catholic Emperor Sigismund, “promised Huss a right to safe-conduct to and from Constance, regardless of the outcome of Huss’ trial” (Portraits Of Faithful Saints, Chapter 19, page 115). When Huss was convicted of heresy by a kangaroo court, Huss reminded Emperor Sigismund of his promise of safe-conduct. The Emperor did not keep his word, and Huss was murdered by being burned at the stake. Roman Catholicism, as we shall see, teaches that it is perfectly alright to lie in order to benefit the Roman Catholic Church-state. For the church of Rome, to put it simply, the end justifies the means. The Holy Scripture, contrary to the Catholic Church, teaches us that all lying is forbidden (Exodus 20:16). In a shameful attempt to cover their guilt, the Roman Catholic Church-state, at the Council of Constance in 1415 A.D., after John Huss’ murder, stated, “No pledge is to be observed which is prejudicial to the Catholic faith and ecclesiastical jurisdiction” (History Of The Christian Church, Vol. 6, page 386). In other words, it is morally acceptable to lie to one who is opposed to the Catholic faith and church government (Magisterium). The endorsement of lying for the purpose of advancing Roman Catholic causes demonstrates to the world how Catholicism stands contrary to the teachings of Scripture. Christ says, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44). Just as the Devil is a liar and a murder, so is the Roman Catholic Church-state. So, Rome lied in order to get John Huss into a favorable position, then it proceeded to murder him.

William Tyndale is known as the “Father of the English Bible.” He translated the Bible into English, then published it for the people of Britain. This simple act of Free Speech was violently opposed by the Roman Catholic Church-state during the Protestant Reformation. One might think that a system or church claiming to be Christian might desire the people to have the Bible in their own language, but, as the Dark Ages and the Protestant Reformation have taught us, Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Dutch Calvinist Herman Hanko explains why the Roman Catholic Church wanted to keep the English Bible out of the hands of the people of England. He writes, “The Romish church in England had forbidden the Bible to be translated into the common tongue. The church was adamant about this and did everything in its power to enforce this rule. There is no question about it that the reason was simply that the Bible in the hands of the common people would reveal how totally corrupt the Romish church had become. The church did not want people to know this. One cleric with whom Tyndale spoke about translating the Scriptures raged, “We had better be without God’s law than the pope’s. Tyndale saw absolute need for reform in England. He saw, too, that no reform could possibly come about without the Bible as the standard of truth and life” (Portraits Of Faithful Saints, Chapter 33, page 251). William Tyndale is famous for stating, “I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou.” Tyndale was speaking to a Roman Catholic cleric when he made this remark.

William Tyndale published the first complete edition of the New Testament in 1525. To do this, he had to leave England and go to Germany to do most of his work. It was smuggled into England through merchants. Roman Catholic authorities, desperate to hide their sins and to keep the Bible out of the hands of the people, confiscated and burned many of the copies. Eventually, William Tyndale was captured by the Roman Catholic authorities and murdered near Brussels in 1536. Miles Coverdale, who helped Tyndale, published a complete edition of the English Bible in 1535, after Tyndale had been captured. Many people have Bibles in their homes today, but few consider that there would be none if the Roman Catholic Church-state had its way. Brave men like William Tyndale gave their lives so the English speaking people might read God’s Holy Word in their own language, and, that they might have the ability to decide for themselves whether they should follow the pope (a sinful man drunk with power and claiming to be a god, but who is really anti-christ), or whether they would put their faith in God’s Word, that is, the Scriptures alone.

The Roman Catholic Church prefers to have an ignorant lay population, for the purpose of easily controlling the masses. Consider the Roman Catholic nations of Central and South America. The average person is illiterate or barely literate. The gap between the rich and the poor is enormous. There is no such thing as a middle-class in such Catholic nations. Ignorance of the Scripture has kept these nations under the tyranny of Roman Catholicism. These poor people are victims of the Roman Catholic political and economic system. Let us remember that it was Pope Gregory the Great who gave the world the famous Catholic dictum: Ignorance is the mother of devotion. Countering this foolish claim, Calvinist and Puritan Cotton Mather correctly stated that ignorance is not the mother of devotion, but of heresy. Catholicism does not desire to teach the Scriptures to the people, this is why it took the Protestant Reformation to give the people the Scriptures in the vernacular, but rather, Catholicism desires to tax their people into poverty and have dominion over them. Seeing the people of Central and South America properly educated in the truth was not a priority for the Roman Catholic Church-state, but stealing their gold and silver and taking it back to the Vatican certainly was!

Sacking nations and taking their gold has always been a favorite practice of Catholic nations in medieval Europe. It is not a coincidence that such practices remind one of medieval feudalism. Roman Catholicism and feudalism were not just separate entities existing together during the Dark Ages, Catholic political and economic thought will always beget a socialistic society if given the chance. In short, Catholicism is the mother of feudalism. Socialism and Marxism are later responses, on the part of the Catholic Church, to the economic system of Capitalism, which was produced by the Protestant Reformation. The colony of Mayrland, during the colonization of North America, is a prime example. The Catholic based colony attempted a feudalistic government, but quickly found out that Protestant Englishmen would go to work in a colony based on Catholic feudalism. The colony was a failure, and it had to be eventually taken over by Protestants before it could become successful. The educated Protestant Englishmen knew the difference between the freedom produced by the Reformation, and the tyrannical feudalism produced by Roman Catholicism. The bottom line is that it is hard for a despotic tyranny to manipulate a literate and well educated people. These are just a few of the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church-state could not afford to have William Tyndale translate the Bible into the vernacular of the people and for the people.

By the way, let’s say a few more things about Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German. Luther’s complete translation of the entire Bible appeared in 1534. Luther did his work in less than a year under the protection of Frederick the Wise, who had German knights to watch over him at Wartburg Castle, Germany. When we think of how God had predestined the ruler Sigismund in relation to John Huss, and how God pre-determined the actions of Frederick the Wise in relation to Martin Luther, then we are reminded of that Scripture which teaches us, “The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will” (Proverbs 21:1). God almighty is always in control of all events and history. God’s providence was working great things for His elect in Luther’s time. When Luther had translated the Bible into German, the people of Germany could then compare the official teachings of the papacy with that of the Holy Scripture. Anyone in that day with the most elementary idea of what a logical contradiction was could clearly see that the Roman Catholic teachings on salvation, church government, political theory, economic theory, and even celibacy was completely contrary to the Scriptures. The German people, now having the Bible in their own language for the first time, could make an educated decision on whether they would follow the opinions of anti-christ (the pope), or whether they would profess the Bible alone to be their rule of faith and practice. Much of Germany ceased being Roman Catholic as a result of Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German.

Today’s Catholicism Still Opposed To Free Speech

The Roman Catholic Church has not changed its anti-Free Speech position since the days of the Reformation. If anything, it has reinforced the notion that people do not have the freedom to speak their mind. Freedom of Speech is openly attacked by the Roman Catholic Church-state in the “Syllabus Of Errors Condemned By Pope Pius IX.” In a fascist authoritative statement that would make dictators everywhere smile, Pope Pius the IX stated, “ 79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.” Notice how the weasel purposely avoids the phrase “free speech.” Instead, anti-christ tries to somewhat disguise his meaning to the simple minded by using “publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts.” The Roman Catholic Church does not believe that people have the right to express their opinions or thoughts freely. This teaching has never been retracted by the Roman Catholic Church-state. It plainly stands opposed to our United States Constitution. People should keep this in mind the next time they see a Roman Catholic politician running for office.

The Roman Catholic attack on Free Speech is nothing more than an attack on Protestant thought. In that same “Syllabus Of Errors,” the Pope attacked Bible Societies, for printing the Bible in the vernacular languages of people around the world, he attacked Separation Of Church And State, and he condemned Protestantism as well. This ‘Syllabus” was published three hundred years since the time of William Tyndale and the Protestant Reformation, and it is evident that the Roman Catholic Church has never once changed its opposing positions toward Protestantantism, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and the Scripture in the vernacular of the people.

The Catholic Church, as we have seen, is still opposed to Freedom of Speech. Their political opposition to Free Speech flows from their religious belief that none have a right to speak freely about the church, or to criticize it. Their idea is that if the Magisterium is infallible and supremely authoritative, then it can not be criticized or questioned. People must mindlessly obey. This incorrectly places the pope above the law. This Catholic notion can be presented no plainer than in Roman Catholic Canon Law. To understand just how superstitious Catholics can be when it comes to Canon Law, let me site a statement found on the home page of Dr. Edward Peters’ www.CanonLaw.info. There we read, “It is Dr. Peter’s conviction, based on many years of study and practical experience in the field of ecclesiastical law, that Church laws work to preserve the freedom of the Holy Spirit.” Wow, what would God the Holy Spirit do without Rome’s canon law? Could it ever be free without the man made laws of sinful men? Please. This is just one Roman Catholic example, among many, which teaches that the temporal institutions of sinful men, or the lack thereof, can effect the behavior of the eternal and holy God of the Bible. Canon Law, or the lack thereof, according to Dr. Edward Peters’, can determine if the Holy Spirit is to be enslaved or free. Fact is, nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing temporal can ever effect the Eternal, and no finite thing can limit the infinite God. For Jehovah, by definition, is above all law, He is not subject to it, especially Roman Catholic Canon Law. The great Calvinist theologian and philosopher Gordon H. Clark treats this subject when he writes, “The idea that God is above the law can be explained in another particular. The laws that God imposes on men do not apply to the divine nature. They are applicable only to human conditions. For example, God cannot steal, not only because whatever he does is right, but also because he owns everything: There is no one to steal from. Thus the law that defines sin envisages human conditions and has no relevance to a sovereign Creator” (Religion, Reason, and Revelation, chapter 5, page 241). The same code of canon law, which according to Dr. Peters supposedly keeps God the Holy Spirit free, also teaches that it is wrong to freely express public criticism of the pope, his church, or his dogma. Again, Rome’s ‘Code of Canon Law’ teaches that no one is allowed to criticize the Roman Catholic Church, or its dogma. The Code of Canon Law, code 1369 states, “A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.” It is important to note here that laws which forbid criticism also forbid reform.

Catholic League Versus Free Speech

Today, operating on the basis of Canon Law 1369, militant and fanatical Roman Catholic organizations, like Catholic League, actively seek to shut down any Free Speech that would criticize, make light of, disagree with, or just plain insult Roman Catholicism. Numerous tactics are employed by groups like Catholic League to suppress any Free Speech which would criticize or “offend” Roman Catholicism. Some people who have been bullied by Catholic League have also received anonymous death threats during their opposition with Catholic League. Although Catholic League quickly denies they are responsible for the death threats, it is worth noting that Catholics have a history of resorting to mob violence to get their way. Violence that is often instigated by the Catholic hierarchy, then carried out by the laity. Sometimes, after the mob has done their work, the Catholic hierarchy might claim that the uneducated Catholic masses do not represent the Catholic Church. This is a cheap attempt to save face, but it is certainly a Roman Catholic tactic: get the ignorant to do your dirty work for you, then take no responsibility for the outcome. The notorious St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre would be but just one example of that murderous Catholic tactic played out in history. Estimates have as many as 100,000 protestants murdered in one night by Roman Catholic mob violence during that massacre in France. Having said that, let’s take a closer look at the U.S. Jesuit-based lay organization known as Catholic League. Does Catholic Leauge attempt to intimidate and attack Free Speech and Freedom of the Press?

In a book by Stephen D. Mumford titled “THE LIFE AND DEATH OF NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy,” there is a comprehensive chapter devoted to the Free Speech hating organization called Catholic League. The author of this book is clearly a humanist, and though I am no fan of humanism, one should investigate the claims made by other world views, especially when they defend freedoms that were championed by the Protestant Reformation. Freedom of Speech is one view which is often spoken of by both Calvinists and Humanists. Thomas Jefferson, who was noted earlier, is a classic humanist example of a Free Speech advocate. That being said, let’s take a look at Mumford’s take on the subject at hand. Chapter 15 of Mumford’s book is titled, “THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE AND SUPPRESSION OF FREEDOM OF THE PRESS TODAY.”

Stephen Mumford quotes William Donohue, president of Catholic League, saying, “according to Donohue, it is fortunate that, “the Catholic Church is there to provide a heady antidote to today’s mindless ideas of freedom.” He is a strong advocate of the Church’s positions of the restrictions of the freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution and condemned by popes for nearly two centuries, especially those regarding press and speech.”

First of all, the Roman Catholic Church-state is not just a church, but it is a recognized political state. They have a foreign ambassador to every nation in the world, unless I am mistaken. The idea that any foreign state, such as Mexico, Russia, and especially the Roman Catholic Church-state, has the right to dictate policy to the United States of America, to the sovereign people of the United States, is not only mistaken, but it is completely absurd. The Roman Catholic Church-state has no business in our political affairs, the whore of Babylon should mind its own business. They can start by putting a leash on all those homosexual pedophiles they call priests. William Donohue’s remark immediately shows that his allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church-state far surpasses his allegiance for the United States of America. Jesuits have a long history of infiltrating nations and attempting to overthrow them from within. They, the Jesuits, because of their seditious treachery, were kicked out of every country in Europe at one time, and were even banned July 21st, 1773 by Pope Clemens XIV. It seems that as president of this Jesuit-based organization, Donohue is simply carrying on the old Jesuit tradition. Secondly, what Donohue calls “mindless ideas of freedom” is his own opinion, an opinion he expresses, and no matter how mindless, it is protected by our 1st amendment---the very same amendment Donohue is attacking. In short, William Donohue’s notion is, to use one of Alvin Plantinga’s favorite lines, self-referentially absurd.

Mumford then quotes Donohue saying, “It is nobody’s business what the Catholic Church does.” Again, when a foreign state, like the Roman Catholic Church-state, attempts to dictate policy to the free people of the United States, then it certainly becomes all of our business. Mumford then points out a remark that Donahue has taken from former Mayor of New York Ed Koch. Donohue attempts to use this remark as a justification for his fascist attacks on Free Speech. Mumford quotes Donohue saying, “Perhaps the most cogent remark of the day…came from the former Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, who politely remarked that his mother always advised him not to speak ill of other religions. It is a lesson that apparently few have learned.” Such a remark only shows that Ed Koch’s mother, and those that agree with her, those like Donohue, have never read the Bible. Anyone familiar with Scripture will quickly point out that the prophets of the Old Testament, men of God, did not take mother Koch’s advice. They constantly condemn pagan religions. As for the New Testament, the Apostle Paul didn’t take the advice of Ed Koch’s mother either. Paul condemned all other religions, and labeled the practitioners of such religions idolaters. Paul teaches, in 1 Corinthians 6:9, that idolaters will not go to heaven, but to hell. Donohue, if he were to be consistent, would have to condemn Paul for speaking “ill of other religions.” Paul’s speech was not hateful, but it was a warning to all idolaters, when he spoke those inspired words of Scripture. Of course, Jesus Himself is guilty of violating the ethics of Donohue, for Christ said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” John 14:6. Christ’s teaching here would not be at all considered nice by Donohue, for Christ excludes all other religions, except His own. Christ is claiming that He alone has the truth. Christ is claiming that His way is the only way for one to make it to heaven. Christ implies that all other religions are false and lead to hell. Didn’t Jesus know that he should not speak ill of other religions? Donohue needs to go back to Sunday-school, for his teachings are an embarrassment, and certainly not Biblical.

One of the more telling quotes in Mumford’s chapter on the Catholic League has Donohue saying, “We specialize in public embarrassment of public figures who have earned our wrath.” I believe this says it all. Rather than use scholarship and logical argumentation to disprove opponent’s positions and validate one’s own position, Donohue resorts to the juvenile tactics of fallacies, poor rhetoric, mindless opinions, and scare tactics. Donohue doesn’t seem to understand that one can be embarrassed, but still be right. Embarrassment has nothing to do with the truth or validity of an argument or position. In fact, an attempt to embarrass an opponent may actually strengthen the opponent’s resolve. I’m surprised that the Catholic Church hasn’t censored Donohue, for he seems only to be embarrassing Catholics and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church with such non-sense.

Kimberly Blaker, another humanist writer, was attacked for writing a commentary that was critical of Catholic League. Kimberly writes, “I saw the reality of the media control firsthand when I unexpectedly encountered the Catholic League--an organization whose purpose is to prevent and eliminate all criticism of Catholicism and its leadership. On September 20, 2001, the San Francisco Examiner published a commentary I wrote identifying the similarities between Islamic extremists and their Christian counterparts. I revealed the Catholic League's use of intimidation to keep opponents and the media in line”
(Kimberly Blaker, Masters Of Media Control--The Culture War, Sept.-Oct. 2003, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_5_63/ai_107897340).

Kimberly Blaker found out first hand how the Catholic League will not hesitate to attack our Free Speech or our Free Press. Let me show you the content that Catholic League was crying about. Blaker wrote, “While less violent in nature, The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a contradiction in itself, exists for the purpose of Canon Law 1369, which states: "A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who ...utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church."

Kimberly Blaker certainly got it right when she pointed out that the very idea of Catholic League is a “contradiction in itself.” Blaker also points out a violent nature in Catholic League, though she states that it is one of a lesser kind than Muslim extremists. Nevertheless, it is clear that many of the persons whose Free Speech have been the target of attacks by Catholic League have received anonymous death threats. The comparison between Muslims extremists and Catholic extremists is a valid one in my opinion, and I think it will not be a matter of if, but a matter of when such threats actually lead to physical violent attack by those who are trying to impress William Donohue by taking his irrational attack methods one step further. Again, one need only to study the violent past of Roman Catholic mobs throughout history, or even present day Northern Ireland, in order to see the seriousness of what is developing in this country today.

Another atheist web-site provides an article reporting of a case of violent threats against a theater company who were targeted by Catholic League. In light of what we already know about the history of Catholic mob violence, is this just a mere coincidence? The article posted at www.atheist.org states, “Along with the demand from the Catholic League that the play be cancelled, more problems and even violent threats against the Manhattan Theater Company were soon pouring in. Trans World Airlines (TWA) announced that it would end its financial support were "Corpus Christi" put on. A telephone call threatened the "Jew guilty homosexual Terrence McNally," adding "Because of you we will exterminate every member of the theater and burn the place to the ground." (McNally was raised a Roman Catholic). And when the Manhattan Theater Company announced that it would not produce the controversial play, Donohue's Catholic League said that it was "delighted” (Theater Company Stands Up To Catholic League: Will Proceed With Play Featuring Gay ''Jesus'' Figure, May 30, 1998, http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/play.htm).

Not only are Calvinists and Atheists opposed to the fascist actions of Catholic League, but even those favorable to Roman Catholics can’t stomach the embarrassment of Catholic League these days. The Rev. Chuck Currie, a United Church of Christ minister, posts an article stating how the organization calling themselves “Catholics For Faithful Citizenship” reacted negatively to William Donohue’s speech at a partisan political rally called Justice Sunday II. The article states,

“Justice Sunday II not only claimed an inflated Super Bowl like viewer ship, but among the inflated egos claiming to speak on behalf of people of faith, Catholics had no credible spokesperson. Instead the few Catholics who may have watched or listened had to endure the continued ramblings of William Donohue of the Catholic League. Donohue’s very short speech was nothing short of a tirade filled with uncorroborated accusations and threats. He started out by bashing Irish Catholics and ending by bragging about how he perceives himself as a threat to the left, as if threatening others is somehow compatible with Christianity.

"As expected, there was no mention of any values that Catholics and our Bishops hold dear, such as economic matters, the war, gun violence, the Bush administrations advocacy for the super rich while ignoring the least among us. There was nothing really substantive on abortion other than repeating the same stereotype – that the right is moral and the left is not. There was no mention of rights for immigrants, minorities or those in need. The 40 million Americans without healthcare were overlooked as well. There was no mention of Jesus’ admonition to “feed the poor”, “clothe the naked” and “give shelter to the homeless” once they are born to impoverished families.

"Rather Donohue chose to show his true extremist colors by referring to Atheist – Marxist Sidney Hook, who he claims had a great influence on him. Is this is something to be proud of as a self proclaimed Catholic spokesperson? Donohue went on to make the ludicrous suggestion that the Constitution be amended to require a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court to overturn any law passed by Congress. We question the authority Donohue has in speaking to maters of the Constitution as if he is a spokesperson for the Catholic Church. By subscribing to Donohue’s suggestion, are we to deconstruct the Constitution and the Supreme Court? Our founders structured the three branches of Government to provide balance. To prevent the balance of power would create the theocracy that Donohue and others at Justice Sunday II envision. They would rather restructure our great system of Government to allow ideologues who want to enforce their opinion and not decide based on the rule of law, precedent and the constitution.
Catholics for Faithful Citizenship encourage Donohue to seek the wise counsel of his Bishop as this would be a good teaching moment for his Bishop. We challenge Mr. Donohue to re-read the Gospels, especially Mark and Luke. As Catholics we are not supposed to wear our faith on our sleeves, we are not supposed to pray loudly and sit in front of the Church, and we should not mention the splinter in our opponent’s eye when we have a log in ours. Donohue seems to forget the words of Jesus. “Do not judge, lest ye be judged”. Leave doctrine and the interpretation of it to the Pope and the College of Cardinals. If Donohue is so sure he knows the correct way for the church then let him hang his articles of truth on the door of the Church like Martin Luther and leave the running of the Government to the three branches and the people."
(Chuck Currie ,William Donohue of the Catholic League continues to embarrass the Catholic Faith, Wed. August, 17th, 2005, [emphasis mine]) http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2005/08/william_donohue.html


The article, for the most part, stands on its own. What I think is worth pointing out is Donohue’s admiration for Marxist Sidney Hook. It is well known and reported that Catholicism and Marxism have a very close and special relationship, especially in economic thought. Both systems espouse the redistribution of goods and are opposed to a free market. Jesuits have a historical record of promoting Marxism and Communism throughout Central and South America. For a good treatment of how the Order of the Jesuits are engaged in promoting communism and liberation theology, read MalachI Martin’s book titled, “The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church.” Martin explains how Jesuit priests go as far as participating in guerrilla warfare in attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments in Central America (The Jesuits, pages 18-21). One statement worth hearing from MalachI Martin, before we return to the other Jesuit-based organization (Catholic League), is revealing of the Jesuit-Communist attraction. Martin writes, “The fact is that though the Society itself is not officially Marxist, individual Jesuits who were and are self-proclaimed Marxists--for Padre Lupe was hardly alone even in that--are not for that reason expelled from the society or censored or silenced. Rather, the greatest pains are taken to protect them from attack. So blatant has this element become that not long ago, when Pope John Paul II met an Indian Jesuit who, as he found, was not a Marxist, he exclaimed in surprise, “So you’re not all Marxist!” (The Jesuits, page 21). When even the pope is surprised that there is a Jesuit who is not a Marxist, then this should resonate soundly in our minds. Getting back to Donohue’s praise for Marxist Sidney Hook, one is not really surprised of Catholic League’s love for Marxism, which also hates Freedom of Speech and the Free Press, once one has a bit of understanding of the Jesuit’s love relationship with Marxism. For example, Liberation Theology was created by the Jesuits. It basically is Roman Catholic Marxism. It is still active in Central and South America to this day. One Hispanic Catholic organization which preaches Marxism and Liberation theology, and which has been showcased by our national media in the illegal immigration invasion, is La Raza. The organization of La Raza, is a Catholic organization which is attempting to help flood the United States with illegal Catholic “immigrants” from Mexico and other Central American nations. Catholic League and La Raza not only have Catholicism in common, but apparently they share a love for Marxism and a hatred of free democratic republics. O.k., let me give one more example of Catholic League’s irrational approach to defending the Catholic Church, while simultaneously murdering Freedom of Speech.

In a September 20th, 2006 article for the Cavalier Daily, David Colbert, Cavelier Daily Opinion Columnist, points out an outstanding instance of instability on the part of Catholic League. Colbert writes,
“REVERSALS of fortune can be amusing, and when people suddenly find themselves on the other side of an issue, their actions are often revealing. Last week marked the end of a controversy in which the Catholic League, a Roman Catholic advocacy group, demanded an apology from The Cavalier Daily for comics that the group found offensive to Catholics. Now, the Catholic Church finds itself under fire for comments about Islam made by the pope during a speech at a German university…Suddenly, the Catholic League finds itself defending an offensive statement”
(David Colbert, An ironic twist of fortune, Sept. 20th, 2006).
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVarticle.asp?ID=27723&pid=1477

First, is it not interesting how the Catholic League suddenly desisted from attacking The Cavalier Daily once the pope was guilty of criticizing Islam? Didn’t the pope know that it is not nice to speak ill of other religions? If only the pope would have listened to Donohue, perhaps all this negative Catholic press could have been avoided. David Colbert continues,
“The similarities between the two situations cannot be ignored. Both involve a religious group demanding an apology for something it regards as offensive. Both the Catholic and Muslim leaders seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone insulting their religion. This attitude reveals a weak faith. If one's conviction is so wavering that a flippant insult or even a serious criticism of that belief threatens it, perhaps one should examine that belief more closely”
(David Colbert, An ironic twist of fortune, Sept. 20th, 2006).
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVarticle.asp?ID=27723&pid=1477

Colbert points out the obvious when he states that the Catholic League and the outraged militant Muslims are simply suffering from a weak faith. Those who are certain and assured in their faith, need not resort to dramatic displays, acts of violence and threats, or tactics aimed at embarrassing one’s opponents, but rather, one who has a sure faith is at liberty to examine the arguments of one’s opponents and rationally respond to them. Instead of trying to publicly embarrass people who criticize Catholicism, people like William Donohue should learn a more intelligent way. Calvinism, on the other hand, teaches its adherents not to embarrass, but to study and engage in presuppositional apologetics. Finally, if you can’t take a little bit of criticism, then you better stay in your monastery and out of public view, especially when speaking in any free democratic-republic.

Infallibility And The All Too Human Catholic Hierarchy

Again, if you are going to have a religion that involves itself, not only in public social matters, but also political matters, then can you seriously expect people not to criticize such a religion when it not only falls short, but falls completely on its face? If men like Erasmus of Rotterdam have freely pointed out all the superstitious nonsense of the Roman Catholic religion during the 16th century, a time when the Catholic Church ran pretty much everything, then why should modern criticism be any less bold? If a religion, any religion, is going to make claims in a free society that its human (all-to-human) hierarchy is infallible and supremely authoritative, can anyone truly be surprised when someone with a basic understanding of logic and a few history books rips into the many fallacies of the Catholic heirarchy? It has already been said that the reason organizations like Catholic League exist is because the Roman Catholic hierarchy cannot intelligently answer their critics. People with probing questions about Catholic doctrine and Vatican behavior throughout the ages seem to pose a dangerous threat to the Catholic Hierarchy and those who choose to defend it. Not only do these probing questions call attention to areas which may need reform, but sometimes such questions actually begin the process of reform? Questions like:

Why is it that the Vatican is dripping with priceless art, jewels, silver, and gold, while so many Catholic people in 3rd world Roman Catholic countries live in utter poverty?

Why did the Roman Catholic Church steal all of the gold and silver from Central and South America, and leave the native people there completely decimated during the 16th and 17th centuries? How long did this rape of Central and South America set the native people there back in terms of political and economic development? How many hospitals and schools could have been built with that money? Is the glamour and art of the Vatican more important than the suffering of the poor and helpless? Even more confronting, just how many people have been killed so that Cathedrals of Europe might be decorated? Should not this blood money be returned?

Why does the Catholic hierarchy pretend not to know that Jesus, in the Bible, commanded the rich young ruler to sale what he had and give it to the poor? The rich young ruler professed he had kept God’s moral law, that is, he claimed, as do all popes, to be infallible and sinless. Christ’s command to the rich young ruler applies, even more so, to those today who would claim infallibility. If the pope be infallible, then let the pope do what the rich young ruler could not! The law given to the rich young ruler demonstrated that the young man loved money more than he loved God and his fellow man. The moral law of God was given to him, as it was given to us, for the purpose of showing to him, and to us, our sinful nature. The rich young ruler’s love of money was greater than his love of God and his fellow man. Christ’s teaching still demonstrates that the same sins lie deep within the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Christ told us that we shall know them by their fruits, and so, the facts speak for themselves.

Christ did not adorn Himself with gold and with crowns when he was among the poor of this world? Why then does the pope? Is servant better than the master? Cite

Why is it that A.I.D.S., and other sexually transmitted diseases, are more common among Catholic priests than among the Catholic laity, especially in the United States? Should it not be less common, seeing how these men make up an “infallible” religious institution?

If given a choice, and in light of all the recent sexual abuse (homosexual pedophilia) within the Catholic priesthood, who would you let your child sleep over with, Michael Jackson or a Catholic priest?
Or, would you simply elect to choose “none of the above”? How can the public ever come to trust an organization which actively covers up such horrifying sexual abuse? If they would lie to their own laity, not to mention the public, in order to protect the Catholic hierarchy, then what else would they lie about? Why should anyone assume the Catholic hierarchy is telling the truth in matters of Christian doctrine, when it has already been shown that they will lie to anyone to accomplish their goals? Now, more than ever, the people should examine and contrast the teachings of the Catholic Church with the teachings of the Bible alone. The people of the world, both Catholic and non-catholic, should read the Holy Scriptures for themselves, not under the censoring eye of the priesthood, but literally, logically, contextually, and grammatically. The people of the world should search the Scriptures for themselves. Christ commands us all to, “search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). Perhaps then more than a few individuals would come to the same realization that John Wycliff, John Huss, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, Francis Gomarus, William Twisse, Samual Rutherford, John Owen, Jonathon Edwards, and millions others have; a realization that Roman Catholicism is a pagan religion no where taught in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.

Bill O’reilly, of Fox News, is good example of a Roman Catholic who uses his position in the media to attack Free Speech in a variety of ways. On the O’reilly Factor, Bill O’reilly has attacked internet bloggers on a number of occasions for using the internet to freely voice their political opinion. O’reilly has also attacked other journalists and media hosts, actually calling for the arrest of an entire radio station in one instance. Like Catholic League, anyone who O’reilly sees as a threat to his own opinion becomes fair game for his rants and ravings. O’reilly will call for boycotts, and will even command his followers to contact individuals who voice an opinion contrary to his own. A frequent guest on the O’reilly Factor is Newt Gingrich. Like O’reilly, the Roman Catholic Newt Gingrich has publicly made his opposition to Free Speech known to the nation, but Gingrich has decided to advertise this notion while making a run for the presidency in 2008. Let’s take a closer look at this Catholic politician who wants to be president and end Free Speech.

Newt Gingrich

Another of the more recent attacks on Freedom of Speech comes from the very Roman Catholic politician Newt Gingrich. Before we get into his attack on Free Speech, let me first give you some of his very Catholic behavior during these past few years. This former Speaker of the House has been very active in the Roman Catholic Church these past years. For example, in August of 2003 Gingrich had his marriage to Callista Bisek “blessed by the Catholic Church.” Seems that they renewed their vows under Father Daniel P. Coughlin, the House Chaplain and a Roman Catholic. Callista is 23 years younger than Gingrich, who was 60 when he had this previous marriage “blessed” by the Catholic Church. In April of 2000 the former Speaker of the House divorced his 2nd wife Marianne Gingrich. Gingrich had been having a 6 year affair with congressional staffer Callista Bisek. Then, 2 years later, Gingrich seeks to have the Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta to annul his 2nd marriage. This was a sleazy attempt by Newt Gingrich, and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta, to claim that his marriage of 19 years, before ending in divorce, wasn’t really a marriage at all. You see, you can’t get married in a Catholic Church if you have been previously divorced. This is why Gingrich was so busy jumping through hoops in order to get the Atlanta Archdiocese annul his marriage. It costs, on average, from about $8,000.00-$10,000.00 to have a marriage annulled. This is quite the lucrative business for the Catholic Church in this country, which has the highest rate of annulment in the entire world! Even more outrageous, in Newt Gingrich’s case, is the fact that neither Newt nor Marianne Gingrich were Catholic when they were married. They were married in a Lutheran Church in Chicago in 1981. To have a Catholic priest to annul a marriage done by a Christian denomination, in Gingrich’s 2nd marriage it was a Lutheran ceremony, is for the Catholic Church to imply that it only has the ability to marry individuals of this world. A true example of Roman Catholic imperialism, and totally false. In case someone is wondering what happened to Gingrich’s first wife, then let me present you with an excerpt from an online article about the bad boys of congress:
Newt's first wife, Jackie Battley, was his high school teacher. Oh, let's not even go there! In a moment of subtlety and finesse, Newt appeared at his wife's side, while she was in the hospital battling cancer and allegedly brought out the yellow legal pad with his terms and conditions for their divorce.
(http://www.congressionalbadboys.com/Gingrich.htm)

If one citation is not enough for some people, then let me offer another journalistic point of view. This one comes from Steve Benen, a writer for the Washington Monthly. Benan, who is reporting not just on the marital infidelities of Newt Gingrich, but also on two other Republican presidential hopefuls Rudy Giuliani (Catholic of course), and Sen. John McCain. Benen comments on Gingrich’s first marriage saying,:
“But the most notorious of them all is undoubtedly Gingrich, who ran for Congress in 1978 on the slogan, "Let Our Family Represent Your Family." (He was reportedly cheating on his first wife at the time). In 1995, an alleged mistress from that period, Anne Manning, told Vanity Fair's Gail Sheehy: "We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" Gingrich obtained his first divorce in 1981, after forcing his wife, who had helped put him through graduate school, to haggle over the terms while in the hospital, as she recovered from uterine cancer surgery. In 1999, he was disgraced again, having been caught in an affair with a 33-year-old congressional aide while spearheading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.”
(Benen, Steve, High Infidelity: What if three admitted adulterers run for president and no one cares?, July/August, 2006) (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html)

Newt Gingrich is obviously a despicable human being who has no respect for marriage, or the people he chooses to marry. If a man can not be faithful to his own wife, then why should anyone believe that he will be faithful to his nation? One is not surprised that Gingrich is faithless to the 1st Amendment after learning of his many adventures in marriage. Now that he is in good with the Catholic Church, Gingrich has set his eyes upon the White House. And what type of presidential goals does Gingrich have his Catholic mind set to accomplish? He wants to rethink this entire Free Speech thing we have going here in the United States of America. The New York Sun reports:
“A former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, is causing a stir by proposing that free speech may have to be curtailed in order to fight terrorism. "We need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until we actually literally lose a city, which I think could literally happen in the next decade if we're unfortunate," Mr. Gingrich said Monday night during a speech in New Hampshire. "We now should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of the threat." Speaking at an award dinner billed as a tribute to crusaders for the First Amendment, Mr. Gingrich, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008, painted an ominous picture of the dangers facing America.”
(Gerstein, Josh, The New York Sun, November 29, 2006)
(http://www.nysun.com/article/44302)

Newt Gingrich is a fear monger. He is trying to scare the people of the United States into giving up their freedoms for so-called government protection. One should always meet such cowardly scoundrels who petty this trash with the famous paraphrase of Benjamin Franklin who said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Franklin was a Humanist, but Patrick Henry was a Calvinist, and I will cite Henry one more time for the sake of ideological contrast. Henry states, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” It seems that Catholicism has a great spirit of fear, as it continues to manifest itself with people like Gingrich, while Calvinism, and even Humanism, understand that one is not safe unless one is free. Giving up our Free Speech will not make us any more safer in this nation. One can have no freedom, and still be killed by those who hate us. This is nothing more than an attempt to play on the fears of the foolish in order to take dominion over them. I am sure that there are many in this country who could care less if their freedoms are removed so long as they have their pornography, their ball-games, their reality t.v., or whatever other trash they waste their pathetic lives on, but some of us who understand the importance of our Constitution will not heed to such nonsense. It is true that there are governments in the world who would wish to kill us, but when our own government begins to seek to remove our freedoms, then it has become our greatest enemy. We must make sure that such politicians are never elected by our votes. Roman Catholic political thought is opposed to Free Speech, and it will eliminate Free Speech should it get the chance.

*****
You can watch a full series of lectures on Calvinism by Red Beetle at Google Video.
Go to Google Video, search for ‘Calvinism’
You can purchase Red Beetle’s latest book on the dangers of Roman Catholic political thought at:
Lulu.com
Go to lulu.com, search for ‘America’s Loss of Freedom’
Other books by Red Beetle available at lulu.com are:
Calvinism: The Westminster Standards (this is the original version that names the pope as anti-christ)
Calvinism: The Dutch Reformed Standards