WHY ARE CATHOLICS UNMOLESTED THERE?
THE Catholic Mirror of January 26 has an article entitled “The Church in Old Holland,” by the Rev. Charles Raaymakers, S.J., Doctor in Civil Law and Political Sciences, one who is supposed to know whereof he writes. Here are his opening words:- “As a rule, Holland is called a Protestant country, yet there is hardly any country in Europe where Roman Catholics are as unmolested as they are in Holland. This has not always been the case. In 1798 religious freedom was already proclaimed in the new constitution, tho our long and severely-persecuted forefathers in the faith danced with the republicans round the tree of freedom, and joyfully joined in their chorus of ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ yet their liberty was, to a great extent, only nominal. But gradually all restrictions have disappeared.” “at the present day their liberty is no longer a mere word, but a perfect liberty; no differences, either political or social, are any more to be noticed between Catholics and those belonging to other religions. Tho this, of course, is by no means an ideal state of things, yet for the present we ought to be thankful for the peace we enjoy.” Now, the very reason for this liberty is Protestantism and its principles. The very reason why Roman Catholics and their religion have been banished and proscribed in the past, has been because they were not content with equal rights. They believe, and have believed, that the Golden Rule applied only to Catholics; that religious liberty is for those who profess the Roman Catholic religion. They have failed to grasp the great Gospel fact that faith and religion are personal matters between man and his God. Failing in this, they have not only been intolerant of what they considered error, but of those who held it. And, because of this intolerance, because of the continual grasping after civil power, that thru civil government “heretical sects” might be suppressed, so-called Protestant governments, and even nations largely Catholic, have felt compelled, in order to preserve the government, to place restrictions upon Roman Catholics, and, especially, Roman Catholic orders. All the persecution that came upon Roman Catholics after the Reformation, all the restrictions under which they have labored, were laid upon them because of the principles of Roman Catholicism, still retained by those who had broken with the Roman fold; or because such restrictions seemed absolutely necessary to safeguard civil government from medieval ultramontane intrigue. As soon as Protestant peoples have felt that the government was safe from Rome’s continual and avowed purpose to subject all to the “see of Peter,” they have removed the restrictions and have given Rome as free a hand as other religious bodies. Thus has England done. Thus has Holland done. Thus did the United States from the beginning. The true Protestant-Christian ideal of what civil government ought to be is absolute non-interference of the secular magistrate in religious matters. Jesus Christ was intolerant of error as none other has ever been. His pure, right soul abhorred it unspeakably. But He loved the sinner. He did more than tolerate him; He gave him the absolute right to choose or refuse the Gospel. He came to preach. His words are, “If any man hear My sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” And He further shows that judgment in matters of religion, and conscience, and faith, is not committed to church or mortal, to council or prelate, by His statement which follows: “He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My sayings, hath One that judgeth him; the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.” John 12: 47, 48, R.V. And this is the teaching of the Golden Rule: “All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them; for this is the law and the prophets.” Matt. 7: 12, R.V. Surely the Roman Catholic would not be restrained or restricted in his religious rights by the Protestant, the Jew, or the pagan. He, therefore, should not seek or desire to restrain them. Nay, more, the Christian will demand for his enemy the same rights, civilly and publicly, which he himself desires. He knows that God is love, that love can not be compelled, but that it must be a matter of free choice. The only safeguard (yet it is sufficient) to even the eternal government of God, is the great fact that, in the face of sin, rebellion, misrepresentation, His subjects have chosen Him, and proved loyal in trial. They will have demonstrated the goodness of God; they will never desire another master. “Affliction shall not rise up the second time.” If Dr. Charles Raaymakers, and Roman Catholics generally, knew this, they would ask no more than they would be willing to grant to Protestant or infidel. Jefferson’s crystallization of the thought,— “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever State or persuasion, religious or political,—is certainly an ideal condition in the imperfect governments of this earth. No Christian could ask more; no other man should have more.”