God Allows Some People to Damn Themselves to Better Manifest His Perfection

God created man with free will.  He allows Sin and permits People to Damn Themselves to manifest His Justice, Mercy, and Goodness — for His Greater Honor and Glory.

God allows evil for His greater glory and in order to bring about greater good.[1]  God allows some people to (voluntarily) sin and to damn themselves because their damnation manifests God’s Justice more clearly than if damnation had been something which never occurred but which we understood only as something that could have – but didn’t – ever happen.

Similarly, God’s Mercy and Goodness in saving the elect is more manifest in contrast to the actual damnation of other souls, since the damned very evidently manifest what could have happened to the elect, had God not chosen to save them, because of His Mercy and Goodness.

Although sin itself is evil, this universe which God made, in which He allows sin and damnation, is a better universe as a whole, because it manifests God’s Mercy, Goodness and Justice better than if there had been no sin.  By better manifesting God’s perfections, the universe gives greater Glory to God.[2]  For God’s only end is His Own Glory, that is, Himself.  Any other end (less than God) is unworthy of God.[3]

Thus, we see that, for His own Glory and to manifest His perfections, God saves some persons and gives them happiness.  Likewise, for His own Glory and to manifest His perfections, God allows some persons to damn themselves and be unhappy.[4]

God chooses the elect, whereas the damned, with their free will, cause their own damnation.

God can and does save anyone He wishes to save.  God never forces anyone to sin and never forces anyone to damn himself.  However, there are some men that God allows to damn themselves.

Sacred Scripture infallibly declares:

The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever He will He shall turn it.

Proverbs 21:1 (emphasis added).

When this passage from Proverbs says God turns the heart of the king “whithersoever He will”, it shows that whenever God chooses to save the king (or anyone else), He does it without forcing a man’s free will.[5]  Notice that Sacred Scripture does not say that God can turn the heart of the king unless the king is one of those unconvertable souls.  There is no such thing (among the living) as a soul which God could not convert.  Although God can convert anyone, He allows some men to damn themselves.  St. Thomas Aquinas and other Doctors of the Catholic Church teach these same truths.[6]

In a certain way, it is true that God Wills all men to be saved, but this is (as it were) a “contingent will” or “antecedent will” subject to a condition that was not fulfilled.

St. Paul teaches that God “will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2:4.  However, God wills all men to be saved upon a condition which was not fulfilled, viz., that there be no sin.

Because sin entered the world, God’s eternal, unconditional Will (i.e., His “subsequent” Will) is that some persons are not saved and are not even “called” through grace.  Our Lord teaches: “many [not all] are called but few are chosen.” St. Matthew’s Gospel, 22:14 (bracketed words added).

Also, Our Lord teaches us that most people go to hell and few people even find the path to salvation (much less follow this path):

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.  How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!

St. Matthew’s Gospel, 7:13-14 (emphasis added).

Among the examples of men that God could have saved but chose not to save (or even give them any grace), are babies who die without baptism, and also “the profane Samaritans [whom], had He so willed, He would have made devout” (words of St. Ambrose, quoted in the note above).

Absolutely and unconditionally speaking, God does not desire all men to be saved but Wills to allow some men to damn themselves through their own free will.

Although God Wills (in a manner of speaking) to save all men, subject to a condition which was not fulfilled, unconditionally God Wills to bring about His greater glory by saving the elect He has chosen and He Wills to allow the damned to damn themselves by their own voluntary sins.  This is why Our Lord did not pray for everyone, in His prayer to His Father after the Last Supper.  Here are His words to His Heavenly Father:

I have manifested Thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world.  Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them; and they have kept thy word.  Now they have known, that all things which thou hast given me, are from thee:  Because the words which thou gavest me, I have given to them; and they have received them, and have known in very deed that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.  I pray for them:  I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine …. 

St. John’s Gospel, 17:6-9.

God chooses His Elect.  They don’t choose Him.  As Christ told His Apostles, who were the beginning of His Church:

You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you ….

St. John’s Gospel, 15:16.

Since it is false that Christ desires absolutely and unconditionally that all men are saved, we should not hope to fulfill Christ’s (supposed) desire for universal salvation, promoted by the liberal N-SSPX and by the rest of the conciliar church.

We should not hope for impossible things.  So, for example, we should not hope we become angelic spirits or that we sprout wings and fly into the air.  Likewise, it is impossible for all men to be saved and so we should not hope for universal salvation, but rather we should hope to help bring about the salvation of whomever God chooses to save from their own voluntary sins.  

We don’t know with certainty which people around us God chooses as His elect,[7] so God Wills that we try to help everyone save his soul, although we know God does not choose to save everyone but allows some men to damn themselves.

Also, as shown above, Our Lord does not Will unconditionally that all men go to heaven.  If He had chosen to save all men, He could have saved them since He can turn their hearts “whithersoever He will” (Proverbs).  Instead God allows some men to damn themselves.  (It is important to note that God does not damn souls but He allows them to damn themselves!)

Thus, we see that the N-SSPX is wrong when it recently taught that we should hope to fulfill Christ’s desire for universal salvation.  Here are the N-SSPX’s words:

Only when the Church is brought back to full health can we hope to fulfill Christ’s desire that all men come to know Him and find salvation.  Supporting the SSPX is about bringing the Gospel to all of those with ears to hear in the hope that, by God’s grace, hearts will be converted, and souls saved.[8]

Conclusion

The elect in heaven have great reason to be humble and grateful, since, in God’s Goodness and Mercy, He gave them the undeserved, free gifts of grace and salvation.  God was not obligated to give them grace and not obliged to choose them as His elect.  

We hope to save our souls and hope to be among God’s elect.  We have great reason to be humble and grateful because God gave us grace and made us Catholics without our deserving these free gifts.  Thus, we must humbly beg God that He choose us to be among His elect.

Let us Glorify God for the Goodness and Mercy He showed us by making us Catholics, giving us the full Traditions of His true Church!


[1]          Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas (the Greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church) explains this truth, quoting St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church:

As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.”  This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Summa, Ia, Q.2 a.3, ad 1 (emphasis added).

[2]
         Here is St. Thomas’ fuller explanation of this truth:

It is the part of the best agent to produce an effect which is best in its entirety; but this does not mean that He makes every part of the whole the best absolutely, but in proportion to the whole; in the case of an animal, for instance, its goodness would be taken away if every part of it had the dignity of an eye. Thus, therefore, God also made the universe to be best as a whole, according to the mode of a creature; whereas He did not make each single creature best, but one better than another.  And therefore, we find it said of each creature, “God saw the light, that it was good” (Genesis 1:4); and in like manner of each one of the rest.  But of all together it is said, “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Summa, Ia, Q.47, a.2, ad 1 (emphasis added).

[3]
         Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth:  

[E]ach and every creature exists for the perfection of the entire universe. Furthermore, the entire universe, with all its parts, is ordained towards God as its end, inasmuch as it imitates, as it were, and shows forth the Divine goodness, to the glory of God.

Summa, Ia, Q.65., a2, respondeo (emphasis added).

God loves mankind and the rest of creation because they are His work and He gave them whatever goodness they have.  But they are finite goods which God loves finitely as part of His infinite love for Himself.  For a fuller explanation of this truth, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/god-does-not-infinitely-love-any-creature.html

[4]
         Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas (quoting St. Paul) explains this Truth of the Catholic Faith:

Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe.  God Wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them.

This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.  To this, the Apostle refers, saying (Romans 9:22-23):

What if God, willing to show His wrath [that is, the vengeance of His justice], and to make His power known, endured [that is, permitted] with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory;

and (2 Timothy 2:20):

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also, of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor.

Summa, Ia Q. 23 a.5, ad 3 (emphasis added).  The bracketed words (in the quotes from St. Paul) are contained in the Summa.

[5]          For an explanation how God never acts against man’s free will even in those whom He chooses to save, read the article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-bishop-williamson-teaches-the-heresy-that-even-god-is-powerless-to-save-some-men.html

[6]          St. Thomas Aquinas, following and quoting the Doctor of the Church, St. Ambrose, teaches that:

God calls whom He deigns to call, and whom He wills He makes religious: the profane Samaritans, had He so willed, He would have made devout. 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.82, a.3, respondeo (emphasis added).

Just as in the Book of Proverbs we see that God can convert the king if He chooses to do so, similarly St. Ambrose teaches that God can convert any profane Samaritans He chooses to convert.

St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace, teaches that God can save anyone He wishes to save.  Here are their words:

Hence it is impossible for these two things to be true at the same time — that the Holy Ghost should will to move a certain man to an act of charity, and that this man, by sinning, should lose charity.  For the gift of perseverance is reckoned among the blessings of God whereby “whoever is delivered, is most certainly delivered, ” as Augustine says in his book On the Predestination of the Saints (De Dono Persev. xiv).

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.24, a.11, respondeo (emphasis added).

Charity always comes with Sanctifying Grace and makes a man the friend of God.  In the quote immediately above, St. Augustine teaches that the Holy Ghost will move any man to charity (and Sanctifying Grace) if He chooses to convert him.

[7]          St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine assure us that we cannot know with certainty why God chooses some people as His elect and not others.  Here are St. Thomas’s words, quoting St. Augustine:

Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others [i.e., allows them to damn themselves], has no reason, except the Divine Will.  Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.):

Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.

Summa, Ia Q. 23 a.5, ad 3 (bracketed words added for context).

[8]          Emphasis added; quoted from the April 30, 2019 “Dear Friend” letter which Fr. Wegner mass-mailed to everyone on the SSPX U.S. District mailing list and also posted here https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/fr-wegner-pray-mary-remember-your-mothers-and-pray-holy-mother-church-47813?mc_cid=e244c8c82b&mc_eid=4fbfee0c0b

God Wills Inequalities between People

 

Difference is the basis for the order in things.  If there were no differences between things, there could be no order between them.  The very idea of order includes within it the concept of priority and of posteriority, and hence, of difference and inequality.  In fact, that very separateness, i.e., the distinctions among things, is the principle of all order.[1]

 

 

God makes creatures unequal.

 

God made difference and inequality in all creatures.  As Ecclesiasticus teaches:

 

Why does one day excel another, and one light another, and one year another year…?  By the knowledge of the Lord they were distinguished.

 

Chapter 33, verses 7-8.

 

Therefore, just as God’s Wisdom is the cause of His making all creatures, so His Wisdom is the cause of Him making creatures unequal.[2]  By making some creatures inferior to other creatures, the whole of creation is more perfect than it otherwise would be.[3]

 

 

Inequality between individual persons

 

All men are equal in some ways.  For example, they are equal before the law, so that their rights as citizens are the same despite differences between them such as in height, in wealth, etc.

 

However, God made persons unequal in many ways and intends this inequality.  God made persons unequal in eyesight, mental acuity, natural prudence, athletic ability, beauty, musical talent, health, height, and in many other ways.  God intends these inequalities. 

 

All mankind is bound together with duties to help those individuals who are more in need of help because of these natural inequalities.  So, a person who can see, can guide a blind man across the street, a taller person might reach something on a high shelf to help a shorter person. 

 

Among all other inequalities between persons, some persons are naturally less prudent than some other persons.  These less prudent persons need to be helped and protected for their own good, including protecting them from their own imprudence.  There are many examples of this.  For example, for their own good, civil laws prohibit persons from making contracts which include interest charges greater than a statutory maximum interest rate.[4]  These laws and many other laws, are ways that society protects those persons against their own imprudence, because they are less able to protect themselves.

 

 

Differences between men in society

 

As explained above, the very idea of order includes within it the concept of priority and of posteriority, and hence, of difference.  In fact, that very separateness, i.e., the distinctions among people, is the principle of all social, political, economic, military and religious order, since difference is a principle of order.  For example, in a proper military order, an army cannot have all generals or all privates.  The army cannot have all equipment operators or all cooks.  Etc.

 

St. Paul emphasizes that God made men unequal and made them to have different roles, strengths and weaknesses.  Here are St. Paul’s words:

 

For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ.  For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.  For the body also is not one member, but many.  If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?  And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?  If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing?  If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling?  But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased Him.  And if they all were one member, where would be the body?  But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.  And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you.  Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary.  And such as we think to be the less honorable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honor; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness.  But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honor, that there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another.  And if one member suffer anything, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.

 

1 Corinthians, 12:12-27 (emphasis added).

 

As St. Paul shows us, God did not make every man to play whatever role that man chooses.  Some men are made more honorable members of society, some, less.  Some men are made the “eyes” of the collective group and some are made the “feet”.  Id.

 

St. Paul emphasizes that these differences between men give rise to the obligation that “the members might be mutually careful one for another”.  Id.

 

 

God intends differences and inequalities between groups as well as between individuals.

 

Just as God intends the countless inequalities between individuals, He also fully intends the inequalities between different groups/peoples/ethnicities/tribes.  To take a few of countless examples:

 

Ø  one people is better at a sport such as basketball, than any other peoples;

 

Ø  one people is more emotional, with a high-strung temperament, while another ethnic group is more calm, staid and reason-oriented;

 

Ø  one people is more creative in the fine arts, than some other peoples;

 

Ø  one people more apt to the sciences than some other peoples; and

 

Ø  one people is more capable in leadership in society than some other peoples. 

God intends all these natural differences, both the strengths and the weaknesses.

 

Pope Leo XIII assures us that “there will ever be differences and inequalities of condition in the State.  Society cannot exist or be conceived of without them.”  Rerum Novarum, §34.

 

These differences between one people and another, are differences between the members of society on a larger scale.  St. Paul teaches us that these differences oblige “the members [to be] mutually careful one for another”.  1 Corinthians, 12:25.

 

All peoples and groups are bound together with duties in justice and charity.  Some peoples are more capable of leading and other peoples need more guidance, more protection and need to be led because of these natural inequalities that God Wills. 

 

These inequalities include that some peoples are naturally less prudent and don’t guide themselves and others as well as other peoples do.  Such peoples need to be helped and protected for their own good.  A striking example of this need occurred in Colombia, after the Masonic revolution in the early 1800s:

 

The liberal revolutionary governments wanted to decrease the authority of the Catholic Church and to enact land “reforms”, including the abolition of the somewhat-feudal system governing the lives of the Indians (who comprised about one-third of the population).

 

The previous (Spanish) government had protected these Indians (like Medieval serfs were protected) by restricting their ability to freely sell the plots of land which they possessed and farmed.  In the name of freedom and the free market, the new liberal government allowed the Indians to sell their little plots of land.  Rich, unscrupulous men quickly induced most of the Indians to (naïvely and shortsightedly) sell their little plots, thus ruining the small amount of independence the Indians had enjoyed.  Within a few years, the ownership of the Indians’ lands was concentrated in the hands of a few rich and powerful families.  The Indians became landless tenants.  The land which had been cultivated by the Indians was then mostly used for grazing cattle.

Quoted from: Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, p.111, © 2016.

 

In light of the natural inequalities between peoples, and because the men of society are bound together in justice and charity, persons and peoples more capable of leading have a duty to guide and protect those who are less capable.

 

It denies reason and these natural inequalities between peoples, to insist that a society’s or an organization’s leaders would be subject to “quotas” and include a “sampling” of “everybody”, i.e., representatives from each different group or people.  This is as foolish as insisting that a basketball team must fulfill “quotas” and have members who “represent” every people in proportion to every part of the public.

 

 

God’s intent that there be inequality in society includes His intent that there be economic inequality (viz., rich and poor).

 

The revolutionaries in society stir up discontent by complaining there is an “income gap” between the rich and the poor, or that this income “gap” is increasing.  However, an inequality in economic conditions is a natural reflection of other inequalities between men.  God Wills these inequalities.

 

Quoting earlier Doctors of the Church, St. Thomas explains that God Wills wealth inequality for both the rich and the poor, so that the rich might acquire the virtue of liberality and so that the poor might acquire the virtue of patience.  Here are his words:

 

The temporal goods which God grants us, are ours as to the ownership, but as to the use of them, they belong not to us alone but also to such others as we are able to succor out of what we have over and above our needs.  Hence Basil says [*Hom. super Luc. xii, 18]: “If you acknowledge them,” viz., your temporal goods, “as coming from God, is He unjust because He apportions them unequally?  Why are you rich while another is poor, unless it be that you may have the merit of a good stewardship, and he the reward of patience?  It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you have stored away, the shoe of the barefoot that you have left to rot, the money of the needy that you have buried underground: and so you injure as many as you might help.”  Ambrose expresses himself in the same way.[5]

 

The Socialists seek to abolish private property, pretending that men are equal and that private property destroys this supposed equality.  Here is how Pope Leo XIII explains this truth:

 

Socialists proclaim the right of property to be a human invention repugnant to the natural equality of man ….[6]

 

The Catholic Church, however, recognizes that all men are unequal and their differences in wealth proceeds from their many natural inequalities.  Here is how Pope Leo XIII explains this truth:

 

[T]he Church, much more properly and practically, recognizes inequality among men, who are naturally different in strength of body and of mind; also, in the possession of goods, and it orders that right of property and of ownership, which proceeds from nature itself ….[7]

 

Pope St. Pius X condemned the false idea that:

 

every inequality of condition is an injustice, or at least, a diminution of justice.  Here we have a principle that conflicts sharply with the nature of things, a principle conducive to jealousy, injustice, and subversive to any social order.[8]

 

 

Conclusion

 

God made creatures different and unequal.  God made all men different and unequal to each other.  God made the peoples and groups of society different and unequal.  God intends that we help each other in our deficiencies and not that we try to impose a false equality and quota system so that all roles in society would be composed from “every group”.

 

 

 



[1]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, teaches this important point, quoting Aristotle:

 

As the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 16), the terms “before” and “after” are used in reference to some principle.  Now order implies that certain things are, in some way, before or after.  Hence wherever there is a principle, there must needs be also order of some kind.

 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.26, a.1 respondeo.

[2]           Here is St. Thomas Aquinas’ fuller explanation of this truth:

 

[I]t must be said that as the wisdom of God is the cause of the distinction of things, so the same wisdom is the cause of their inequality.  This may be explained as follows.  A twofold distinction is found in things; one is a formal distinction as regards things differing specifically; the other is a material distinction as regards things differing numerically only.  And as the matter is on account of the form, material distinction exists for the sake of the formal distinction.  Hence, we see that in incorruptible things there is only one individual of each species, forasmuch as the species is sufficiently preserved in the one; whereas in things generated and corruptible there are many individuals of one species for the preservation of the species.  Whence it appears that formal distinction is of greater consequence than material.  Now, formal distinction always requires inequality, because as the Philosopher says (Metaph. viii, 10), the forms of things are like numbers in which species vary by addition or subtraction of unity.  Hence in natural things species seem to be arranged in degrees; as the mixed things are more perfect than the elements, and plants than minerals, and animals than plants, and men than other animals; and in each of these, one species is more perfect than others.  Therefore, as the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things for the sake of the perfection of the universe, so it is the cause of inequality.  For the universe would not be perfect if only one grade of goodness were found in things.

 

Summa, Ia, Q.47, a.2 respondeo (emphasis added).


[3]           Here is St. Thomas Aquinas’ fuller explanation of this truth:

 

It is part of the best agent to produce an effect which is best in its entirety; but this does not mean that He makes every part of the whole the best absolutely, but in proportion to the whole; in the case of an animal, for instance, its goodness would be taken away if every part of it had the dignity of an eye. Thus, therefore, God also made the universe to be best as a whole, according to the mode of a creature; whereas He did not make each single creature best, but one better than another.  And therefore, we find it said of each creature, “God saw the light, that it was good” (Genesis 1:4); and in like manner of each one of the rest.  But of all together it is said, “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good” (Genesis 1:31).

 

Summa, Ia, Q.47, a.2, ad 1.

 

[4]           Here, for example, is a prohibition of excessive interest, taken from New York’s civil code of law:

 

4. Except as otherwise provided by law, interest shall not be charged,   taken  or  received  on any loan or forbearance at a rate exceeding such   rate of interest as may be authorized by law at the  time  the  loan  or forbearance  is  made,  whether  or  not the loan or forbearance is made   pursuant to a prior contract or commitment providing for a greater  rate   of  interest,  provided, however, that no change in the rate of interest prescribed in section fourteen-a of the banking law shall affect (a) the validity of a loan or forbearance made before the date such rate becomes effective, or (b) the enforceability of  such  loan  or  forbearance  in accordance  with  its  terms,  except  that  if  any loan or forbearance provides for an increase in the rate of interest during the term of such loan or forbearance, the increased rate shall not exceed  such  rate  of interest  as  may  have  been authorized by law at the time such loan or forbearance was made.

 

Quoted from the 2012 New York Consolidated Laws, General Obligations, Article 5 – CREATION, DEFINITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

Title 5 – (5-501 – 5-531) INTEREST AND USURY; BROKERAGE ON LOANS

5-501 – Rate of interest; usury forbidden.

 

[5]           Summa, IIa IIae, Q.32, a.5, ad 2.


[6]          
Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris, Dec. 28, 1878, Denz. 1851.  Here is the longer quote from Pope Leo XIII:

 

But also, Catholic wisdom most skillfully provides for public and domestic tranquility, supported by the precepts of divine law, through what it holds and teaches concerning the right of ownership and the distribution of goods which have been obtained for the necessities and uses of life.  For when Socialists proclaim the right of property to be a human invention repugnant to the natural equality of man, and, seeking to establish a community of goods, think that poverty is by no means to be endured with equanimity; and that the possessions and rights of the rich can be violated with impunity, the Church, much more properly and practically, recognizes inequality among men, who are naturally different in strength of body and of mind; also in the possession of goods, and it orders that right of property and of ownership, which proceeds from nature itself, be for everyone intact and inviolate; for it knows that theft and raping have been forbidden by God, the author and vindicator of every right, in such a way that one may not even look attentively upon (i.e., covet) the property of another, and “that thieves and robbers, no less than adulterers and idolators are excluded from the kingdom of heaven” [cf. 1 Cor. 6:9f.].

Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris, Dec. 28, 1878, Denz. 1851.


[7]          
Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris, Dec. 28, 1878, Denz. 1851.

 

[8]           Here is the longer quote from Pope St. Pius X, condemning the ideas of a liberal and modernist group called the Sillon:

 

Teaching such doctrines, and applying them to its internal organization, the Sillon, therefore, sows erroneous and fatal notions on authority, liberty and obedience, among your Catholic youth.  The same is true of justice and equality; the Sillon says that it is striving to establish an era of equality which, by that very fact, would be also an era of greater justice.  Thus, to the Sillon, every inequality of condition is an injustice, or at least, a diminution of justice.  Here we have a principle that conflicts sharply with the nature of things, a principle conducive to jealously, injustice, and subversive to any social order.  Thus, [according to the claims of the Sillon] Democracy alone will bring about the reign of perfect justice!  Is this not an insult to other forms of government which are thereby debased to the level of sterile makeshifts? 

 

Quoted from the encyclical sometimes called, On the Sillon and sometimes called Our Apostolic Mandate.