On Religion and its Necessity

by Fr. Giuseppe Frassinetti, 1865

(revised and edited by the Oblate Fathers of St. Charles, 1872)

Section I. The Necessity of a Religion

Is it necessary for men to have a Religion?

Taking for granted the certainty of the existence of God, which no one who uses his reason can doubt, it is necessary for men to have a Religion; that is to say, that they should offer worship to the Supreme Being, who is God, from whom they derive existence and all blessings.

Why do you say that no one who uses his reason can doubt the existence of God, for many philosophers have not only doubted, but denied it: and they were men, who, besides being very learned, were most acute critics, and profound reasoners?

No true philosopher, that is to say, no good reasoner, even among Pagans, has ever doubted the existence of God. A few only, who, notwithstanding the acuteness of their intellects, abandoned themselves to every kind of infamy and crime, fearing God’s chastisements, and not choosing to amend their lives, sought to persuade themselves that there was no God, so as, if possible, to arrive at being impious without fear and remorse. They therefore blasphemously asserted that there is no God. But none the less were they persuaded that He exists. In fact, after having in their life-time blasphemously denied God, in the hour of death, either in penitence or in despair, they confessed that there is a God. As a sick man, to whom the thought of death is grievous, seeks to persuade himself that he will recover from his sickness, however clear the reasons may be which should convince him to the contrary; so did these impious philosophers, to whom the thought of the existence of a God was intensely obnoxious, seek to persuade themselves that there is no God, although they had the clearest evidence of His existence.

Assuming the existence of God, why is it necessary that men should offer worship to this Supreme Being?

For the same reason that a son should love his father, that a subject should pay homage to his king, that one who has received benefits should be grateful to his benefactor, etc. This Supreme Being is our Father, our King, and our Sovereign Benefactor.

Section II. The Necessity of a Revealed Religion

Is natural religion sufficient, that is to say, a worship given to God according to the dictates of mere human reason; or is a determinate worship, manifested to us directly by God, by means of a supernatural revelation, requisite ?

Mere human reason is not sufficient to make known to us all the truths necessary to the right knowledge of God. Human reason of itself cannot determine by what sacrifices, and with what rites man should acknowledge His supreme dominion, and honour Him. Moreover, of itself it is not able to determine all the laws of moral rectitude. Omitting all the other arguments which might be brought forward, it is sufficient to observe that this proposition is an undeniable fact. None of the philosophers who have treated of God and His attributes by the light of natural reason alone, attained to giving a just idea of the Supreme Being; and whilst they all agreed that He was to be honoured and adored, they were never able to agree as to the kind of sacrifices and rites which ought to be adopted. (1) The laws of morals, when left in the hands of mere philosophers, ever inclined either on one side or on the other, to what was unjust and base. The Pagan philosophers among the Greeks recognized the necessity of a revelation, and constantly looked for, and desired it. (2)

It would seem that, as human reason became perfected, it might attain a point which it had not yet reached; that is to say, a thorough knowledge of the divine attributes, of the most acceptable modes of honouring God, and of all the rules of the moral law; and now that, in consequence of the march of enlightenment, human reason is near this perfection, we shall henceforth no longer stand in need of a supernatural revelation.

Considering the many centuries during which philosophers have studied how to bring the faculties of the human mind to perfection, were our reason capable of an absolute perfection, it would by this time be perfect, and we should know all things, so to speak, better than the angels; but instead of this, the republic of philosophers (I speak of those only who disdain the light of revelation) does but find itself in greater confusion, and greater darkness; so that there is no doubt but that twenty centuries ago, Plato, Aristotle, and other heathens, taught a philosophy far more reasonable, correct and moral, than that taught by the infidel philosophers of the present day. Man has in his nature a depth of malice and ignorance which is unfathomable; and if he would really perfect his spiritual faculties, he must join the light of revelation to the light of reason. Moreover, it is not for us to judge of the progress of enlightenment in our own age; future ages will judge of it dispassionately and without self-love. We may believe that it will not be denied its just need of praise for progress in the industrial sciences; we may doubt whether it will secure equal praise for progress in metaphysical and moral science. Meanwhile, we challenge our infidel philosophers to come to some agreement amongst themselves; for, whilst we are deafened by the confused warfare of a multitude of irreconcilable systems, we cannot even understand what they say to us. Let them agree among themselves, and then we may begin to entertain the supposition that they are capable of perfecting human reason. Whilst the tumultuous chaos of their opinions does but deepen more and more, what can we believe, what can we say? Therefore the ridiculous hope of the complete perfection of human reason cannot exempt us from acknowledging the necessity of a revealed religion, which may instruct us in the knowledge of God, in the way in which we are to adore Him, and in the rules of true morality.

Section III. The Marks of the True Religion

Many are the religions in the world, which claim to have been revealed by God; but since they are all opposed one to the other, they cannot all have been revealed; one alone can have been revealed by God, and how are we to distinguish it from the rest?

Most certainly God, who is the Truth, cannot reveal as true, things contrary one to another, each of which supposes the falsehood of the rest; and so amongst all the so-called revealed religions one alone can be the offspring of a true revelation. No abstruse researches nor prolix demonstrations are needful to distinguish this one from the rest. As a precious diamond is distinguished amidst the fragments of brittle glass, so is the true revealed religion distinguished from those which are false. The religions which call themselves Revealed Religions are, Paganism, Mahometanism, Judaism, and Christianity. Paganism, which is a huge collection, or, to speak more correctly, a huge chaos, of innumerable worships, is repugnant to reason, because, we may say, that of everything it makes a god. So that, according to its dictates, that which in one place is the god to whom victims are to be sacrificed, is in another place the victim which is to be sacrificed to, as a god. In Egypt, sacrifices were offered to the ox; in Greece, it was the ox that was offered in sacrifice. One of the ancients relates that, in a certain place, the very priests disputed among themselves, which of two animals was the victim to be sacrificed, — which the god to whom the sacrifice was to be made. This religion has all the marks of folly, and none of divinity. Nor has Mahometanism anything divine about it; no prophecies verified, no miracles wrought; born in ignorance and nurtured in ignorance, it was established and propagated solely by the power of the sword. Barbarity is its support, uncleanness is its food, and both together, all it hopes for in the life to come; never was there a sage who did not abhor it, and hold it in derision. But of Judaism we must speak in a different way. Judaism can boast of prophecies fulfilled, and miracles performed; its books are holy, and have impressed on them the character of divinity; therefore the Jewish religion is a religion revealed by God. But this religion was not intended to endure for ever; it was to give place to that religion of which it was but the figure. Its books say clearly that God would make to Himself a new people, who should possess a new law, and a new sacrifice; therefore the Jewish religion was that worship by which God chose once to be honoured by men; but it is so no longer. And truly wonderful is the abandonment, in which God has left it;— without a temple, without a priesthood, without sacrifices, and, more than this, without a country; so that the Jews, dispersed over all the world, are strangers in every land. The Jewish religion therefore, of itself, declares that it is no longer that religion which is pleasing to God, but that Christianity has been substituted in its place. Christianity is now the one and only religion which has the marks of divinity, and it alone will bear them to the end of the world. All the prophecies of Holy Scripture confirm its truth. Infinite miracles attest that Christianity is the work of God. The Christian religion is that which gives to men the grandest and most perfect idea of the Supreme Being, which it is possible for them to have; it teaches a most sublime way in which He is to be adored; it prescribes moral laws, all based on justice and holiness; and so the most ignorant Christian, if he be but instructed in the first rudiments of his faith, is more learned in divinity, in worship, and in morals, than any philosopher whatsoever, not a Christian. It suffices but to know the Christian religion, in order to feel compelled to proclaim it to be the true, the only religion which enjoys the marks of divine revelation.

How comes it that, since Christianity bears all the marks of revelation, it should be the most opposed of all religions?

You must observe from whom the opposition comes; because, from the quality of the enemy, we may recognise the quality of the object of his attack. The Christian religion was always more opposed than any of the other religions which are in the world, but it was always opposed by the impious and the impure. The persecutors of the Christian religion, as history shows us, were always the most lost in vice; and the more fierce among them were always monsters of crime and infamy. What wonder is it that the wicked should hate that which is good, and hate it the more, the greater it is? Meanwhile this continued opposition, whilst it constitutes the glory of Christianity, furnishes us with another mark of its divinity; for, whilst it has been the most opposed of all religions, it is at the same time the grandest and the most unchangeable. After twenty centuries of strife it is still the same, full of force and vigour, spreading itself triumphantly over the whole world, and changing its enemies into its children, so soon as it becomes known to them. This fact, over and above the promise of God, assures us of its indefectibility.

But in the Christian religion there are many sects opposed one to another; which of these is the true one?

Not one of those sects; all are false. The true religion is that which is no sect; that which was founded by the Apostles, which has their faith and their customs; that which all sects oppose; that which spreads itself over the whole world, embraces all ages, and therefore calls itself, and is in truth, the Catholic religion. All sects have for their heads, men who are deserters from the religion of Christ and the Apostles; therefore they can be called Christian sects, only in so far as that they acknowledge Christ, and pretend to honour Him after their fashion. But they cannot be called Christian, in the sense of making part of that religion which was truly founded by Christ. Facts demonstrate that they are separated from it, because they fight against it. (3)

---

Notes:

(1) What Rousseau himself wrote of Deist philosophers may be appropriately quoted here. “If we consider their reasons we shall find that they all tend to destroy — they agree only in mutual contradiction.”

(2) Here are Plato’s sentiments in the Dialogues with Alcibiades. “SOCRATES.— The safest course is to wait patiently, and we certainly must wait until he come who shall instruct us in our duties towards God and towards men. ALCIBIADES.— When will that hour come, and who shall instruct us in these things? I ardently desire to behold this teacher! SOCRATES.— He of whom we are speaking has care of thy concerns, but, as I think, he acts in regard to us, as Homer relates that Minerva acted with Diomed. Minerva dispelled the mists which darkened the eyes of Diomed, and he then saw the objects which were before him. In like manner it is necessary that a dense mist should be taken away from the eyes of thy understanding, in order that thou shouldest discern good from evil, which at present thou canst not do. ALCIBIADES.— Oh! that he would come! Oh! that he would dissipate this darkness! For my part, I would be ready to do whatever he should command, so that I might but become better than I am. SOCRATES.— This is what we ought to do, because in our ignorance we know not what sacrifices are pleasing to God and what are displeasing to Him. ALCIBIADES. When that day shall arrive, our sacrifices will happily be pleasing to God, and I trust in His goodness that this day cannot be far off.” You see how even Pagan philosophers desired a revealed religion, and acknowledged its necessity.

(3) The unreasonableness of indifference in the matter of religion will be clear and manifest if we reflect sincerely on the subjects here briefly mentioned. If God ought to be honoured by a worship, if He has revealed what that worship is which He wills to receive from us, if in manifesting it to us, He warns us that every other worship is henceforth an abomination to Him: this being one of the fundamental truths of the Catholic religion, how is it possible we should believe that God is indifferent as to what kinds of Worship there may be on the earth? Can it be reasonable to suppose that God esteems Himself honoured equally by chaste and pure worship, and by the impure and abominable rites of paganism? Can we imagine that the slaughter of the twenty thousand human victims who were annually sacrificed in idolatrous Mexico, when the breasts of those miserable beings were torn open in order to pluck thence their still living, palpitating hearts, was as pleasing to Him as the innocent and pious sacrifice of our altars? Can we suppose that the groans and shrieks of horrible despair which rang through those halls of terror and death, pleased Him as much as the peaceful hymns, breathing gratitude and love, which resound in our temples? It seems to me a lesser evil to suppose that God does not exist, than to suppose the existence of a God so stupid and insensate as he would be, who should hold himself equally honoured by all and every kind of worship that ever has been, and is now, in the world. Here we will give the propositions condemned in the Syllabus annexed to the Encyclical of the 8th December, 1864, sect. iii., in order to make known the errors which they condemn.

“XV. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, by the guidance of the light of reason, he shall judge to be true.

“XVI. In the exercise of any religion whatsoever, men may find the way of eternal life, and gain eternal salvation.

“XVII. We may at least entertain a good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who are not in the true Church of Christ.

“XVIII. Protestantism is but a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which equally as in the Catholic Church, men can please God.”

The Catholic Christian must believe precisely the contrary of that which these condemned propositions set forth. The third proposition condemned in the above-mentioned Encyclical must also be noted; as in it the following error, or rather errors, are confuted: “Liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man, and in every well constituted society it ought to be proclaimed and established by law; every citizen has the right of perfect freedom in manifesting and declaring openly and in public, by word of mouth and in print, or in any other way, his own opinions, whatever they may be, unrestricted by any authority ecclesiastical or civil.”