Two Traps – Catholic Social Teaching & Sunday Observance

Deutsch

Two fundamental traps are approaching humanity, without people actually realizing how fatally consequential these are. These are Roman Catholic social teaching and the legislation regarding the special observance of Sunday.

Coercive measure not perceived as such

There are essentially two things that the papacy, through the Roman Catholic Church, will impose on humanity as a “norm of human morality,” ultimately through coercion. This enforcement will be achieved through legislation by state institutions. It will likely be accompanied by constant “adjustment,” with the sanctions threatened for violations of the law being continually tightened.

The first coercive measure, which will even meet with widespread acceptance, is the implementation of Roman Catholic social teaching, which, however, is based on Hellenistic natural law and not, as one might assume of a church calling itself Christian, on the foundation of the Gospel.

The second coercive measure, which is also likely to be accepted by the majority without significant resistance, is the mandated rest every Sunday. Extensive campaigns have been underway for years at various levels to this end. The goal is to cover the spectrum of people’s numerous ideologies.
– Sunday as a day of separate worship (religious)
– Sunday as a unified day for the “protection of the family” (secular)
– Sunday as a day for the protection of nature and the climate (secular)

Sunday, declared a day for family and nature protection, also encompasses the acceptance of other religions. Thus, the “Protection Sunday” narrative is broad and has long been propagated by politics and business in some areas.

The Church of Rome sees itself as authorized

Fundamentally, it is important to understand that the Roman Catholic Church claims to hold the destinies of this world in its hands. Be it political, religious, or economic, the Church of Rome, in its self-understood role as “divine representative, indeed God himself on earth,” believes it has supreme dominion over everything that exists in this world (Info). The centuries of the Middle Ages attest to this, and in its “infallibility of divine authority,” this Church has never abandoned this claim.

The fact that this church, as a “legal entity,” claims the right to acquire property independently of any other power is still understandable here:
Canon Law, Canon 1254:
“To pursue its proper purposes, the Catholic Church by innate right is able to acquire, retain, administer, and alienate temporal goods independently from civil power.”
Diesem Selbstverständnis sind auch die Gläubigen unterworfen, die dazu angehalten sind, die Erweiterung des Eigentums dieser Kirche zu unterstützen, so in Kanon 1260:
“The Church has an innate right to require from the Christian faithful those things which are necessary for the purposes proper to it.“

Claim not limited to one’s own city walls

Now, one could argue that the Vatican (or the Holy See) can do whatever it wants within its sphere of influence, just like any other state. However, the papacy’s claim is not limited to the perimeter of its own city walls, but encompasses the entire globe. After all, it is “divinity on earth” and therefore naturally the owner of all natural and manufactured goods.

The Church of Rome Describes Itself

It goes without saying that only the Church has the right to administer all the goods of this world and thus also the right to determine their distribution and allocation. Here, however, the Roman Catholic Church uses not the Gospel as its standard, but Hellenistic natural law. This is not a fundamentally new idea, as the “Supreme Saint” Thomas Aquinas already defined natural law as the determining law in his standard work “Summa Theologiae.”

SECOND PART OF THE SECOND PART : L.65, C.3. Reply to Objection 1:

“It would seem unlawful for a man to possess a thing as his own. For whatever is contrary to the natural law is unlawful. Now according to the natural law all things are common property: and the possession of property is contrary to this community of goods. Therefore it is unlawful for any man to appropriate any external thing to himself.“

SECOND PART OF THE SECOND PART : L.31, C.8. Reply to Objection 3:

“All things are common property in a case of extreme necessity. Hence one who is in such dire straits may take another’s goods in order to succor himself, if he can find no one who is willing to give him something. For the same reason a man may retain what belongs to another, and give alms thereof; or even take something if there be no other way of succoring the one who is in need. If however this be possible without danger, he must ask the owner’s consent, and then succor the poor man who is in extreme necessity.“

SECOND PART OF THE SECOND PART : L.65, C.8. Objection 3:

“On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.“

Reply to Objection 3:
“In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another’s property in order to succor his neighbor in need.“

Church of Rome legitimizes violation of God’s commandments

According to the Roman Catholic Church, anyone who is “in need” is entitled to simply take what they need (or want?) from the owner, whether officially or secretly. This is self-evident under natural law and therefore should not be considered a sin. At least, that’s what natural law says, but what does the Gospel say?
– Thou shalt not steal. (Exodus 20:15)
– Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. (Exodus 20:17).
Clearly a direct violation of the 8th and 10th Commandments of God (Info). Simply declared null and void by the Roman Church and replaced by natural law.

Natural law is tradition

The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, defined by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, has endured to this day. Pope Leo XIII set a milestone in modern times for the vigorous advancement of this social doctrine with his encyclical “rerum novarum” in 1891.

Pope Leo XIII

In Article 6, Leo XIII writes:
“For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.“

In Articles 9 and 47, Leo XIII again emphasizes natural law:
“Here, again, we have further proof that private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature.”
“The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether.“

However, the right to property is not unlimited, as stated in Article 11:
“With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence.“

Here Leo XIII assumes that man has a “natural insight” that goods should be shared.

Gaudium et spes after Vatican II

The Second Vatican Council (1962 to 1965) is considered a milestone in the “transformed Roman Catholic Church.” The extent to which this Church has truly “transformed” in relation to social teaching is demonstrated by the Pastoral Constitution “Gaudium et Spes” of 1965. In it, the Church emphasizes “its closest bond with the human family” and allows in Article 69:
“If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.“

Pope John Paul II & New Edition

The unrestricted validity of Catholic social teaching, initiated by Thomas Aquinas and reinvigorated by Leo XIII, was demonstrated by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical “laborem exercens” in 1981. It states:
“From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. In the course of the decades since the publication of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, the Church’s teaching has always recalled all these principles, going back to the arguments formulated in a much older tradition, for example, the well-known arguments of the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas.“

This natural law applies to both natural and manufactured resources and goods:
“In every system, regardless of the fundamental relationships within it between capital and labour, wages, that is to say remuneration for work, are still a practical means whereby the vast majority of people can have access to those goods which are intended for common use: both the goods of nature and manufactured goods.“

Pope John Paul II relativizes

In 1987, Pope John Paul II again drew on social teaching regarding private property and relativized the supposedly unrestricted right to own property at all. In the encyclical “sollicitudo rei socialis,” Article 42 states:
“The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a “social mortgage,”79 which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods. Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.“

Private property, yes, but only within the framework of the common good according to natural law. What exactly the common good is and what it entails is determined by the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI

How could it be otherwise than that Pope Benedict XVI is also an advocate of natural law. This natural law is the “source of the norms that precede all human law,” and no one has the right to tamper with natural law, let alone to abolish it, according to Benedict. (Source).

Benedict also presented the visions of Roman Catholic natural law to the German Bundestag in September 2011. In his speech to the members of parliament, the Pontiff also aligned German policy with Catholic social teaching. “Nature and reason” are the true sources of law, the Pope stated.

In his encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” (2009), Benedict declared social teaching to be the basis for evangelization, as in Article 15:
“[…] These important teachings form the basis for the missionary aspect of the Church’s social doctrine, which is an essential element of evangelization. The Church’s social doctrine proclaims and bears witness to faith. It is an instrument and an indispensable setting for formation in faith.“

Pope Francis

However “liberal” the Jesuit Pope Francis may have been, with his encyclicals “laudato si'” and “fratelli tutti,” the Argentinian also proved that he was fully in line with natural law. He was a Pope of the Second Vatican Council, as he himself emphasized, always uttering the phrase “human family and the common good.”

But Francis took a rather unnoticed yet monumental step. He moved the world toward the desired synthesis between the Gospel and its counterpart, “humanism.” The goal is based on pantheism, or panentheimsus, a global ethos that defines a diffuse deity in nature. Terms such as “Mother Earth and Gaia” are such keywords for this doctrine based on theosophy (Info).

Pope Leo XIV

Pope Leo XIV, in office since May 2025, deliberately chose his name to promote, and even complete, the continuation of the social teaching initiated by Leo XIII. He didn’t hold back in announcing his intended goals. The focus is on “the human family and Sunday observance” (Info). A clear statement.

Leo XIV already demonstrated the supposed return from the “liberalism of Francis” to the “conservatism of Benedict” during his first appearance on the balcony in St. Peter’s Square. After the invocation “hebemus papam,” the new pontiff appeared in identical robes to those of Pope Benedict XVI. “Peace for the world” was his first call for the foundation of a united “human family” in the sense of Catholic social teaching.

Focus on Sunday sanctification

The emphasis on Sunday as a day to be sanctified for the religious and a day of family and climate protection for the secular or other religious adherents is the second focus of the papacy. Sunday, the first day of the week, was already extremely important to the first “fathers” of the Roman Catholic Church. Since then, this church has waged a continuous battle against the biblical Sabbath (Info).

The opposite is quickly defined. God, with His Fourth Commandment, demands the observance of the 7th day, Saturday. The papacy, on the other hand, demands the observance of the first day of the week, the solar day, or Sunday. It is also the Church itself that not only openly admits the change of the Sabbath to Sunday, but even vehemently defends it (Info).

It is therefore not surprising that the popes, one after the other, always emphasize “their” Sunday and even treat it as crucial for salvation, also in the sense of the Eucharist (Info).

Pope John Paul II emphasizes Sunday observance

The Polish Pope also placed a strong emphasis on Sunday observance. The Pontiff reaffirmed this in his encyclical. “dies domini“, in 1998. Article 66 states:

“[…] When, through the centuries, she has made laws concerning Sunday rest, the Church has had in mind above all the work of servants and workers, certainly not because this work was any less worthy when compared to the spiritual requirements of Sunday observance, but rather because it needed greater regulation to lighten its burden and thus enable everyone to keep the Lord’s Day holy. In this matter, my predecessor Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum spoke of Sunday rest as a worker’s right which the State must guarantee.“

Und in Artikel 67:
“[…] Therefore, also in the particular circumstances of our own time, Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy. In any case, they are obliged in conscience to arrange their Sunday rest in a way which allows them to take part in the Eucharist, refraining from work and activities which are incompatible with the sanctification of the Lord’s Day, with its characteristic joy and necessary rest for spirit and body.“

“Heretic”

On July 7, 1998, the Detroit News published an online article about Pope John Paul II and his call to observe Sunday, as prescribed as a day of worship. After all, it was the “Lord’s Day” (Info). Sunday, the Pope complained, had degenerated into a mere “weekend feeling.” Yet Sunday must be sanctified above all else, and this must be done through participation in “Holy Mass.” Anyone who violates this Sunday commandment must be punished as a heretic, the Pontiff stated.

What the Church of Rome defines as heretic has been demonstrated countless times by this institution. It is not deviation from the Gospel that is decisive, but rather deviation from its traditions or catechism. Those who did not repent and renounce the faith, which this church considered heresy, were regularly handed over to the state authorities for execution.

Benedict XVI on Sunday

We cannot live without Sunday, said Benedict XVI at the Angelus on May 22, 2005. Parishes, in particular, are now called to rediscover the “beauty of Sunday.” “Keep Sunday holy!” was his appeal at the Angelus on February 5, 2006.

During his Angelus on July 12, 2009, Benedict declared Sunday to be “good for humanity.” For Christians, he said, this is a day of prayer to renew spiritual strength.

Francis on Sunday

With his encyclical “laudato si'” (2015), Pope Francis not only highlighted Sunday as a special day to be observed, but also had his Jesuit colleagues define new “10 Green Commandments” (Info).

In Article 237, Francis emphasizes:
“On Sunday, our participation in the Eucharist has special importance. Sunday, like the Jewish Sabbath, is meant to be a day which heals our relationships with God, with ourselves, with others and with the world. Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, the “first day” of the new creation, whose first fruits are the Lord’s risen humanity, the pledge of the final transfiguration of all created reality.“

Already very close to the goal

Be it Roman Catholic social teaching or the prescription of Sunday as a holy day, in whatever form. Both individual aspects are direct attacks on God’s commandments. For atheists and members of other religions, the violations of these commandments seem irrelevant. But that doesn’t change the simple fact that these very commandments of God are ultimately violated, even willfully and persistently.

The gospel is very capable of distinguishing the motive for transgressing God’s law. Whether this is due to (erroneous) faith or simply unbelief, simply obeying the law directed against God. The difference lies solely in whether the “mark of the beast” lands on the forehead (faith) or on the hand (action). Both are bad (Info).

What the papacy still lacks to implement its legislation is the unrestricted power enjoyed in the Middle Ages. But the “Beast from the Earth” is already very actively engaged in officially dissolving the current divide between church and state (Info). It is only a matter of time before papal laws are implemented at the national, state level.

Bible verses from King James Version (1611)