There is a battle going on for the soul of America. I thought you might want to know about it. You are not yet persuaded that there is danger? Do you think the Roman Catholic Church is more tol erant today, more lenient in interpreting its authori tarian dogma, and more co-operative with the modern states? Is it? I would dispute that. I would say rather that it has not repudiated a single doctrine that brought on such enormities as the Spanish Inquisition and the massacre of the French Huguenots. Different today? Is Archbishop Stepinac different? In our dislike of Tito and what he stands for, we have forgotten that this Archbishop was exactly what they said he was, a tyrant, responsible for the death of many people on politico-religious grounds. Is Father Tiso of Hungary different? He was one of Hitler’s most efficient murderers and is on trial for his crimes. Was Antonescu different? He was a murderer and persecutor from the beginning, yet at the height of his undistinguished career, when he was the darling of the then triumphant Nazis, he was called to the Vatican and presented with a medal of honor. This man, whom the present Pope saw fit to honor, was recently tried by a people’s court, and shot. Is the Roman Catholic Church different today? Why was Tito and all who participated in the trial of Arch bishop Stepinac excommunicated by the Pope when such a patent scoundrel as Hitler, an indisputable Catholic, was not excommunicated? The New York Times, in its first coverage of the Tito excommunication story, hap pened to mention how unprecedented this was, and stated that not even Hitler had suffered this punish ment. Succeeding issues did not carry the story. Pre sumably that was part of the news which was not fit to print! The fact is, the Roman Church was reasserting its ancient prerogative to conduct trials of its own clergy in ecclesiastical court rather than permit them to be tried' in civil court. That was Tito’s greatest crime against the church—not that the trial was necessarily unfair, but that there was a trial at all! Protestants would not be so naive if they would read a little more history! Suppose that a Roman Catholic leader such as Father Coughlin were to be indicted for treason or sedition in war time, and suppose that, I, a Christian minister, were similarly indicted, do you think for a moment that the Roman Catholic priest would be tried in civil court as I would be? The recent drastic action by the Pope in excommu nicating all who participated in the Stepinac trial is nothing more nor less than a bold warning to Roman Catholics in every country that they dare not bring any church official to trial in a civil court. The audacity of the Pope is matched only by the docility of non- Catholics, except, unfortunately, for the Communists, whose ideology and methods are not acceptable to us. And yet some of our newspapers tried to stir up our people to protest this trial! I note that it was this same newspaper chain which, a few years ago, tried to get our country involved on the side of the Roman Church against the excesses (if such they were) of the anti clericals in Mexico, but now that reports filter through to us of the butcheries of Protestants in Mexico by the Sinarquistas, a fascistic, priest-ridden organization, this same newspaper chain is significantly silent. As I approach the conclusion of this most unusual sermon—unusual, for you know that my emphasis in preaching is on the gospel of the saving grace of Christ, my Saviour—I call you to witness to these things: I have not held the Roman Catholic religion up to ridicule. P«ge Eighteen
I have expressed my convictions temperately, with the utmost desire not to stir up hatred for Roman Catholics. I have not argued doctrine with the Roman Catholics in the pulpit for I deem such argument to be a waste of time. I have spoken very frankly but only on issues, you will notice, that concern our liberties, and with the desire to define the areas of moral responsibility which are ours, mutually, as Catholics and non-Catholics. I have spoken about Roman Catholic officials on a basis of equality and not of deference. I will not speak on any other terms. I have not said one word which could be remotely interpreted as wishing to hinder the advancement of the Roman Catholic Church on a basis of equality with my own faith. I have pleaded, purely and simply, for the banish ment of the double standard in religion—a policy in all phases of our national life which gives the Roman Catholic Church a place of pre-eminent respect and privilege, a position which it has obtained for itself more by political coercion than by moral grandeur. In short, I plead for fair play. I ask nothing for Protestants that I am not willing to concede to Roman Catholics. And I reaffirm my deep conviction that the wall which separates church and state is rapidly crumbling. I ask you to dedicate yourself to the task of strength ening that wall. In the next newsletter, I shall outline my suggestions for an initiative referendum which will take care of the issue so far as California is concerned, God helping us, but I shall never be satisfied until there is an amend ment to the Constitution of the United States, emphasiz ing what we, the people, mean by the First Amendment. This time we should be careful enough to leave no loopholes. I wish to close with two reaffirmations. I believe in this country of my adoption. I love it, and I love its people, people of all faiths. There is something about an American, whatever his creed! I believe, furthermore, that we have the best form of government on the face of the earth, so good, in fact, that we are still just learning how to live up to it. We have a lot of faults, of course, grievous sins, and in some things we will have to change. But the basic principles of our government must not be tampered with, and for anyone to imply that a small deviation from these principles is warranted to please any religious group, is sheer folly. There can be no small deviations in the First Amendment. Any deviation is significant. I say these words with deep feeling, words which must never become trite, "Long may our land l>e bright with freedom’s holy light.” My second affirmation is even more important. It speaks of my first loyalty. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God. I am Justified by faith, and I have peace with God through Jesus Christ, my Lord. I love Him because He sacrificed His matchless life for me. That is not an indication of conceit supreme on my part; it is rather an indication of God’s incomparable expression of love for me—for all men. I like the kind of authority of which Jesus spoke. He said, "Believe me for the very works’ sake.” He asks me to believe on Him on the basis of His works—to believe Him on the evidence—on the basis of hard facts! I have examined the evidence. His luster, is un dimmed. No failures, nb weaknesses, no uncertainties in His life, appear before my eyes. I say, reverently, of Him and of Him alone, as did another, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Fa ther, full of grace and truth.” T H E K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs