Catholic during the Great Apostasy

We are confronted with the objection: All religions are based on truth and give man some rule of life: is it not right, then, to leave him to his will what religion he wishes to follow?

This is not right, for as God is one and truth one, so only one religion can be true; otherwise it would have to be asserted that both the Catholic who believes what the Church teaches, – and the Protestant who does not recognise the Church, – and the Jew who rejects the Saviour Jesus Christ, – and the Muslim who regards Mohammed as a divine prophet, – that is, that one truth excludes the other, and therefore that all religions are false.

There is only one religion, the Catholic religion, which has the pure truth and the whole truth; all other religions contain fragments of the truth, but they are mixed up with errors; and all of them differ from the Catholic religion not only in their rites but also in their dogmas, that is, they are a greater or lesser depravity of it; Reason itself says that man is obliged to seek the truth, and the whole truth at that, all the more so because it is not indifferent to man what he believes, for religion influences his whole life, both temporal and eternal, and norms all his relations.

Besides, God Himself, as Sacred Truth and Holiness Himself, could not have revealed a false religion; but since He has revealed the true religion, and has pointed out a sure way to Himself, He has thereby imposed upon man the obligation to accept that religion and to follow that very way; otherwise he will not attain salvation.

To claim that God, having given a revelation, looks indifferently on whether one believes or disbelieves, whether one accepts the truth in its entirety or only a part of it, – whether one bows to fetishes, Buddha, Mohammed or Christ, would be impious, for it would be a negation of the holiness of God, who, after all, cannot lie and deceive people, and cannot be indifferent to truth and falsehood.

If it were permissible for man to profess whatever religion he wished, why did the Son of God in human flesh come into the world, give himself to be crucified, and establish his Church, to which he commanded to tell the Gospel to all nations? Why did Christ the Lord threaten: Whoever does not believe will be condemned (1)?

Whoever, therefore, does not accept or, if he is able to seek, does not seek the true religion, opposes the will of God and condemns himself; and the only true religion can be the one revealed by Christ through his Church.

It is therefore incomprehensible and anti-religious for the new apostles of the “religions of mankind” to want to merge all religions into one, that is, to leave only a vague religious feeling and to establish on this basis a universal brotherhood of peoples (2), – or at least to exclude from the individual Christian confessions all that they differ from each other, in order instead to create a “substantial, non-dogmatic and non-confessional Christianity” (3).

It is also impious for deists and rationalists to claim that there is no need to concern oneself with dogmas, which are merely human inventions intended to put religious beliefs into certain formulas, but that it is enough to live a good life, that is, to act according to the principles of morality derived from reason alone. First of all, it is not man who invented religious truth, but God Himself who revealed it and commanded it to be accepted by faith, while the first duty that this truth imposes is that of worshipping God and keeping His commandments. Secondly, a morality that is not based on religion, that is, on faith, hope and charity, is a fragile web that can be torn apart at any moment by the wind. Mankind would be poor if it had nothing else but such morality.

It is also foolish to accuse any change of religion of being a dishonourable act, and that every man should cling to the religion of his ancestors. Indeed, to abandon the true religion, that is, the Catholic one, is a shameful act and one worthy of condemnation, which is a grave sin against God, a mark of stupidity of spirit or corruption of manners, a great offence to society, and an irreparable harm done to the apostate himself, to his offspring and to the nation. On the other hand, the renunciation of any other religion, even if dear to one’s ancestors, in order to enter the Catholic Church, is a sacred duty of conscience, which must be fulfilled, regardless of the resistance of one’s family, or even of persecution from the people – and at the same time it is a matter of great honour, because it testifies to true wisdom, courage and concern for one’s own and one’s own welfare.

The voice of conscience, for example, was magnanimously followed by the excellent German writer Count Stolberg, and when for this reason he heard the unpleasant reproach from the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm III: “I do not like those who change their faith”, he gave him an apt reply: “And I don’t like, if my ancestors had not changed their faith, I would not have needed to return to the Catholic Church”. This is what all heretics and schismatics can say when they renounce error or schism. To claim, however, that one must adhere unconditionally to the religion of one’s ancestors would mean as much as practising any religion, even if it were an abominable idolatry.