I agree with Fr.Brian Harrison :
“DH does not contradict the Church’s traditional doctrine.”
Once it is seen that the Council has not changed the Church's teaching on other religions it is easier to see how DH is in agreement with Tradition.
Dignitatis Humanae acknowledges religious freedom in Constituions which are not those of the Catholic confessional states while in principle it acknowledges the right of Catholics to their beliefs including that of the non separation of Church and State and the Social Kingship of Jesus over all legislation and institutions.
A DIALOGUE ON DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
R.
My concern and issue with DH is not religious indifferentism, strictly speaking, but the matter of proclaming that man has a right to be free of restriction in publicly proclaiming and propagating his theological beliefs, regardless of how wrong and/or anti-Catholic they are, subject only to the due limits of public peace/public safety, the intrinsic moral order, and unsavory forms of expression.
Lionel:
De facto in the present time man is free.Since the Church does not have secular power.
Once we understand that Vatican Council II does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus we can believe that de jure (in principle) it is important for all legislation and political instituions to have Christ as their head.
R.
This, along with John XXIII's Pacem in Terris, seems to clash with Mirari Vos and Immortale Dei, at a minimum. I do think it clashes with Quanta Cura interpreted in any reasonable manner, though, admittedly, QC's language is somewhat more vague and generalized than MV or ID. Also, while I can see that DH does not technically clash with Quas Primas, if I look at how Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI have conducted themselves, taught and spoken on this subject, then their interperative application of DH does indeed even contradict Quas Primas, not to mention the others.
Lionel:
In the popes last encyclical he mentions that he has no power on this issue. It is a brief one line comment.
Then there is confusion over the dogma.
R.
from the 1500s, which magisterially proclaims that heretics can be executed.
Lionel:
The Catholic Church does not have the power presently. They can only support these teachings in principle.
R:
FROM MIRARI VOS:
15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?
Lionel:
In principle even today the Church has criticized the media over evil.
Defacto the Church has no power as in the past.
R.
16. The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books.[23] It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest "that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful."[24] This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine.[25] "We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames."[26] Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.
The Church does not have defacto power.In principle they can assert themself, they can comment.
R.
IMMORTALE DEI:
32. So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue.
I see no theological reconciliation here, if words and beliefs have any concrete form and meaning left.
Lionel:
In principle Vatican Council II does not contradict these texts you have mentioned.
Defacto the Church does not have political power as in the past.
R.
Saying a change has occurred and is somehow justified is a different matter, one that still gives me trouble but does recognize that change has occured, a discontinuity within continuity as our present pope has described it. But, to start with, I do not see any possible chance for a claim of pure continuity, which has been claimed by some, such as Fr. Most and Fr. Harrison.
Lionel:
Can you quote me that exact text from Vatican Council II which contradicts the de jure (in principle) understanding of this issue ?
A DIALOGUE ON DIGNITATIS HUMANAE -1
R:
I simply see no way that man has a natural right to be free from restriction in propagating theological falsehoods,
Lionel:
Man has a natural right to choose. God leaves him this freedom.
R:
regardless of who does or does not have what kind of power.
Lionel:
regardless of who does or does not have power man has a natural right to choose.
R:
Even if the Church is 'powerless', in principle, nobody has a right to be free to publicly peddle any theological error or evil of their choosing.
Lionel:
True if the Church had the power as in the past nobody has a right to be free to to publicly peddle any theological error or evil of their choosing.
R:
If a current-day, non-Catholic government, for some oddball reason, decided to protect the Catholic faith by restricting the public circulation of theological ideas at odds with the Catholic faith, much the way Catholic confessional governments did before 1960, this should be welcome by the Church
Lionel:
Yes, of course!
R:
and its doctrinal teaching, not condemned in our new doctrinal teaching
Lionel:
And not be not condemned in our new doctrinal teaching !
R:
as an immoral affront against man's very human dignity, which is what we're being taught now, in contrast to the pre-1959 era.
Lionel:
I don’t know who you are referring to precisely.
R:
Nothing I see in our present-day teaching says that Catholic confessional states enjoy any exemption from this, and it really wouldn't make any theological sense, as I illustrated above with my oddball example, to have multiple standards.
Lionel:
There are no Catholic confessional states R.
R:
Our teachings regarding matters like abortion have not fluctuated based on how much power the Church does or does not have.
Lionel:
Correct and neither does are teaching have to change in principle (dejure) on the Social Reign of Jesus, extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc.Vatican Council II in its text does not ask it of us.
R:
Not only has teaching consistently said it's wrong,
Lionel:
Not in the text of Vatican Council II,R.
R:
the teaching has continued to entail an authoritative call to governments to stop such practices, regardless of how little power and influence the Church enjoys.
Lionel:
Please quote the text you are referring to.
R:
There is no reason that I can see how theological change, or multiple contexts of differing doctrinal teaching, is now justified simply because of a lack of power. Nothing wrong with continuing to condemn any non-Catholic public teaching of theology. Why does it matter, how little power the Church has?
Lionel:
No text says that we have to not believe in principle that all political and social legislation must have Jesus as its head.We can still believe it even if the Church does not have the power to implement it defacto. The text of Vatican Council II does not state otherwise.
FROM PACEM IN TERRIS
14. Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. According to the clear teaching of Lactantius, "this is the very condition of our birth, that we render to the God who made us that just homage which is His due; that we acknowledge Him alone as God, and follow Him. It is from this ligature of piety, which binds us and joins us to God, that religion derives its name.''
Lionel:
Vatican Council II does not have this same message?
Hence, too, Pope Leo XIII declared that "true freedom, freedom worthy of the sons of God, is that freedom which most truly safeguards the dignity of the human person. It is stronger than any violence or injustice. Such is the freedom which has always been desired by the Church, and which she holds most dear. It is the sort of freedom which the Apostles resolutely claimed for themselves. The apologists defended it in their writings; thousands of martyrs consecrated it with their blood."
[From R: It seems borderline appalling that John XXIII selectively quotes Leo XIII out of context in support of a new teaching that Leo XIII's teaching contradicts and which Leo XIII would never have approved of.]
Lionel:
So in principle we are still free to uphold and affirm this true freedom.
FROM DIGNITATIS HUMANAE:
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.
Lionel:
Correct, Catholic religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.
Non Catholic communities defacto are allowed the same right because of the power of the secular, socialist, Islamic etc state.
R:
In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity.
Lionel:
They may not be prohibited physically.Morally and verbally we can express are Catholic religious views with freedom including the one which says outside the church there is no salvation and all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
R:
All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community.
Lionel:
We are opposed to the use of force.
A DIALOGUE ON DIGNITATIS HUMANAE -2
R:
With all due respect, we seem to be completely talking past each other.
As an example, in the beginning of the last email from me, I said I simply see no way that man has a natural right to be free from restriction in propagating theological falsehoods. You respond with man has a natural right to choose and he is left by God in this freedom. That sounds like a non-sequitir that does not address what I had said.
Lionel:
'man has a natural right to be free from restriction in propagating theological falsehoods.'
I would like to agree with you but I am confused when you say' man has a natural right to be free from restriction in propagating theological falsehoods'
R:
My saying that I see no way he is to be free from restriction in propagating falsehoods does not mean I am saying or holding he does not have a natural right to choose. The Catholic Church classically held the view that I am holding to here, at least before 1959. That a person had a right to be free from restriction or coercion in choosing what they'd believe.
Lionel:
O.K So I also believe that a person should have the right to be free from restriction or coercion in choosing what they would believe.
So where is the problem?
R:
But they had no right to be free from restriction in publicly propagating anything from their non-Catholic faith that would contradict Catholic faith and morals.
Lionel:
'not be free from restriction in publicly propagating from their non-Catholic faith that would contradict Catholic faith and morals', since the issue is eternal salvation.So in principle we agree that this is the ideal. I m still not clear with 'not be free from restriction in publicly propagating...'
R:
Also, as an aside, I believe there are still technically a couple of Catholic states in existence, though their scope of activity on behalf of the Catholic faith has been hobbled by the demands of the post-1965 Vatican, as I understand. But whether these states exist or not seems completely irrelevant to a discussion as to what religious truth is, and what are the obligations of all states to the Church.
Lionel:
We agree on what religious truth is and that it is found only in the Catholic Church and that all political states should affirm Catholic teaching and be obedient to the pope or to a political representative of the Holy Father. De jure this should be the relation of the Church and state.
Even though defacto it is otherwise now.
R:
Also, I am rather puzzled that my saying our abortion teaching remains unchanged - I'm actually giving the post 1965 Vatican some credit here - is questioned simply because abortion wasn't dealt with explicitly in Second Vatican???
I would like to try to focus on the first exchange here regarding natural right and choosing. I don't see that while man does indeed have a natural right to choose having most anything to do with the problem at hand, as classical Catholicism generally held that and it - like indifferentism - is not one of the points from DH that traditionalists are questioning and challenging.
Lionel:
Let me repeat again:
We agree on what religious truth is and that it is found only in the Catholic Church and that all political states should affirm Catholic teaching and be obedient to the pope or to a political representative of the Holy Father. De jure this should be the relation of the Church and state.
So in principle Vatican Council II does not contradict this belief. However defacto it seems to acknowledge that states are free to create laws and this is a defacto right or reality.
A DIALOGUE ON DIGNITATIS HUMANAE-3
R.
The DH problem is not about indifferentism, or baptism of desire or no salvation outside the Church etc.
The problem: in classical pre-1959 Catholic teaching, while people have a right to be free from pressure or coercion in accepting the Catholic faith and moving from being a non-Christian to a Christian, the teaching was fairly clear that they did not have the right to be free from restriction in publicly peddling and propagating their views that did not coincide with Catholic faith and morals. You could believe in Protestantism or Islam, or Judaism or most whatever in a classic Catholic confessional state of the 1940s and 1950s. But you had no natural right to be able to publicly proclaim your erroneous beliefs on TV, radio, in publicly circulated books, magazines, newsletters, or on billboards.
Lionel:
In a Catholic state de facto non Catholics have no right to proclaim their religious beliefs through the media.
Now they de facto have the right since the state is secular or non Catholic.
So the SSPX can say that in principle (de jure) non Catholics should not have the right to proclaim their religous beilefs through the media. De facto the SSPX is unable to stop them.So the SSPX has to defacto acknowledge the right of non Catholics to proclaim their religious beliefs.
The same would apply to the Vatican.
Pope Benedict XVI has said in his last encyclical that he has no power and so it is not an issue in the present time.
R.
A Catholic state had every right, even a duty, to curb the public propagation of these things, at least to the extent it feasibly could. The Church recognized the Catholic state had the option of permitting some or all of these errors to be publicly aired, in situations where the Catholic state felt it would be too difficult and problematic to suppress them, and wishes to obtain a greater good by not engaging in such restrictions. But when that happened, it was merely a toleration being granted to these non-Catholics, and I suppose Catholic dissidents. DH takes us well beyond any optional toleration to proclaiming an objective, normative natural right, something that flies in the face of what Catholic thought had stood for since the 4th century.
Lionel:
Could you say that DH is proclaiming a defacto objective, normative right since now there are no more Confessional states.DH in principle (de jure) is not saying there is such a right for non Catholics ?Since Vatican Council II acknowledges that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation and all their members, with no known exception need to enter the Catholic Church (AG 7).
Dejure,yes (Dejure means in principle, Defacto means in reality)
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom-DH 2
Lionel:
Dejure and Defacto,yes.
This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.-DH 2
Lionel:
Dejure,yes.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.-DH 2
Lionel:
Dejure,yes.
This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
Lionel:
Defacto,yes
This right... to religious freedom... is to become a civil right.Note religious freedom only is to become a civil right.
Lionel:
Dejure,yes they are all to seek the truth. The truth is found in only the Catholic Church (AG 7)
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth
Lionel:
Dejure,yes.
However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.
Lionel:
Defacto,yes, no one is to be forced.
Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
Lionel:
Dejure and Defacto,yes.
Indeed, religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in international documents.(DH 15)
Lionel:
Defacto under most constitutions.
In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.
Lionel:
So DH acknowledges religious freedom in Constitutions which are not those of the Catholic Confessional states while in principle it acknowledges the right of Catholics to their beliefs inluding that of the non separation of Church and State and the Social Kingship of Jesus over all legislation and institions.
-Lionel Andrades
from the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Forum. Vatican II - Voice of The Church http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t979p50-vatican-ii-voice-of-the-church#8575
Posts
