Santosh Helekar wrote: The word secularism has many meanings, all of which are good. In Indian and British English this word is commonly used to mean tolerance and respect for the right of an individual to hold or not to hold the beliefs of any religion. Secular people, irrespective of whether they are priests or not, consider all religions, as well as absence of religion, to be completely equal.
Santosh, the OED defines secular as "1. not religious, sacred, or spiritual. 2 (of clergy) not subject to or bound by religious rule."
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/secular?view=uk
Based on this quote from Chuck Colson's latest column, I am inclined to believe that the American English definition is not very different:
"Why do militant secularists attempt to snuff out religious practice, even in prisons, where it is so desperately needed? Partly, it’s a fanatical hostility toward religion. But these efforts also reflect a serious misunderstanding both of the role religion should play in public life and of religion’s social benefits."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/chuckcolson/printcc20050114.shtml
All of this is to say that I still find no reason as to why Fr. Cosme J. Costa of Pilar must be impressed with a spirit of secularism. He can maintain his commitment to Catholicism and be entirely tolerant of other religions without being a secularist.
Peter
