Is Catholicism compatible with a "pluralistic" and "democratic" society? Not really...

In the Comments of a OnePeterFive article on the Massacre in Sri Lanka, I read with interest the following observation by someone who lives in the UK: "In our jurisprudence, a belief is not protected by law if it is unworthy of respect in a democratic society, or is incompatible with human dignity, or conflicts with the fundamental rights of others."

Very vague, those . Also, it could apply to Catholicism. Easily. Fully, actually. I mean Real Catholicism, as opposed to the Church of Nice. The Church traditionally can work with any form of government, even democracy, which is otherwise known as "Mob Rule". But the Church has always insisted on being a special case, that it is the TRUE RELIGION and allows other religions to exist solely on sufferance.

Democracy on the other hand is based on the spurious idea that public opinion is "all the law and the prophets", as it were. No democracy ever lasted very long, historically. And a full, or fuller, democracy would be bitterly opposed to such a Church.
Republics have lasted, of course. Venice for some 600 years. Others, not so long: Cromwell's English "Commonwealth" for example. But while a Republic -- or a monarchy or an oligarchy or whatever -- maybe have some form of "democratic" element, that element is -- and must be -- subordinate, because public opinion is so fickle and changeable, and manipulated by those who know how to do so.

A "democratic society" is a pluralistic one, where each religion (each religion that's allowed to exist, that is) is no better than any other. Preaching your religion, or your sect of a religion, as the True Religion would be against pluralism, public opinion, and mob rule.
Then there's "human dignity" or I suppose "human freedom", the idea that human dignity is founded on "human freedom". But the Church defines "human freedom" (if we can put aside the ridiculous an incoherent Vatican II document on that subject) entirely differently than any democratic society: we are not free in having many choices; we're free solely when we do what God made us to do, when we are what God made us to be. Adam and Eve were NOT "free" to eat the forbidden fruit; they were free only inasmuch as they obeyed God's will for them.

But of course to understand freedom in that sense, one has to accept the Faith in the first place.

And the "fundamental rights of others" means what, exactly?

An Préachán

Wny Relativism Is Feminism

A friend wrote me the other day:

All together , God makes it clear in the bible that He does not expressly sanction any religion and facilitates a multitude of religions (that are, de facto, human made).

I can’t agree with this, of course. It is neither Biblical teaching (Old Testament) nor New Testament/Catholic-Orthodox Church (the Historical Church) teaching. 

It’s Relativism, of course, and really essentially Masonic. It is also decidedly feministic, an integral aspect of this “femmed” culture we live in, i.e. in the sense that “feminism” wants to make no judgments, no ruling about who’s right and who’s wrong – such judgement is something essentially masculine – fathers have this burden whereas mothers “mother”. This feminized culture rather would mother us all (to death, really) by telling us we’re all good and everybody is nice, and so on.

An example of this: I was introducing my kids to the old Irish Rovers song The Unicorn, how they played games instead of getting on the Ark, and all drowned, and my wife interjected with how horrible that was to teach to 10-year-olds (and 9 and 7-year-olds) and that somehow the Unicorns were saved. The mother wanted to "mother" her kids and protect them from the harsh realities of life, whereas the father sat in judgment and wanted his children to face reality. 

A perfect example. 

An Préachan