A quick look at Religious Liberty

[PaulAndrew83]

This is one of those things that is bandied about as “proof” that the Vatican 2 council is heretical on some points. I did at one point visit a monastery of Dominicans in France and was told the following thing.

“Sometimes teachings of the Church in different times can APPEAR to be different to each other but because you are applying Catholic principles to a different era with much different circumstances things do APPEAR to be substantially different when in fact they are NOT.”

There are certain things that need to be considered here before people jump the gun on religious liberty.

The Church has always allowed the Jews to have their synagogues etc even in the papal states and Rome itself. It has long been considered a lesser evil, rather than force the Jews to convert by the sword. So the Church has always had some level of religious toleration for a false religion - current version Judaism is obviously wrong since it denies the completion of revelation.

It is also considered wrong to force people to convert to the true Faith.

Also in this day and age there is not one single Catholic State in existence outside of the Vatican. Secular states have no rights in the field of Religion. Especially since they persecute the true one in various ways.

These are very difficult times and many of the teachings of the Church are getting distorted.

It is more prudent to say to yourself " I genuinely do not understand how these words can be interpreted and understood in the Catholic sense rather than make a judgment of attributing heresy to an ecumenical council."

I mean a look at history shows that councils and the periods following and leading them can be periods of massive upheaval.
The Arian Heresy seemed to triumph after nicea and the Jansenist heresy which influenced Catholics until St Pius X
was a denial of Trent.

If you read the Michael Davies thread you will see how cothrige explains something difficult to understand with a great deal of clarity.

God Bless

Paul

 

[SFD]

This is one of those things that is bandied about as “proof” that the Vatican 2 council is heretical on some points. I did at one point visit a monastery of Dominicans in France and was told the following thing.

“Sometimes teachings of the Church in different times can APPEAR to be different to each other but because you are applying Catholic principles to a different era with much different circumstances things do APPEAR to be substantially different when in fact they are NOT.”

There are certain things that need to be considered here before people jump the gun on religious liberty.

The Church has always allowed the Jews to have their synagogues etc even in the papal states and Rome itself. It has long been considered a lesser evil, rather than force the Jews to convert by the sword. So the Church has always had some level of religious toleration for a false religion - current version Judaism is obviously wrong since it denies the completion of revelation.

It is also considered wrong to force people to convert to the true Faith.

Also in this day and age there is not one single Catholic State in existence outside of the Vatican. Secular states have no rights in the field of Religion. Especially since they persecute the true one in various ways.

These are very difficult times and many of the teachings of the Church are getting distorted.

It is more prudent to say to yourself " I genuinely do not understand how these words can be interpreted and understood in the Catholic sense rather than make a judgment of attributing heresy to an ecumenical council."

I mean a look at history shows that councils and the periods following and leading them can be periods of massive upheaval.
The Arian Heresy seemed to triumph after nicea and the Jansenist heresy which influenced Catholics until St Pius X
was a denial of Trent.

If you read the Michael Davies thread you will see how cothrige explains something difficult to understand with a great deal of clarity.

God Bless

Paul

So what is your argument? What are the issues often discussed with respect to religious liberty prior to, during, and after Vatican II?

Do you know what is really at issue here…or are you just saying “nothing has changed”?

SFD

 

[synjones]

Those who want to know about this Religious Liberty you can have quick look of this for this Liberty.

---

Capture One Auto Transport

 

[Unitas]

The Church has always allowed the Jews to have their synagogues etc even in the papal states and Rome itself. It has long been considered a lesser evil, rather than force the Jews to convert by the sword.

That’s a false duality. The state can support and promote the one true faith over others without forcing anyone to convert.

So the Church has always had some level of religious toleration for a false religion - current version Judaism is obviously wrong since it denies the completion of revelation.

True, the state must seek the greater good. And if toleration of other faiths is for the greater good then so be it. (to avoid riots in the streets and so on) However, if such a toleration becomes a detriment to the greater good, then the state is obliged to suppress it.

It is also considered wrong to force people to convert to the true Faith.

Yes. But like I said before, the state is perfectly able to support the one true faith without forcefully converting anyone. Just because you give a plus to religion A does not mean you must give minuses to religion B.

Also in this day and age there is not one single Catholic State in existence outside of the Vatican. Secular states have no rights in the field of Religion. Especially since they persecute the true one in various ways.

To be quite honest, secular states have no right to rule whatsoever. A state’s right to rule is God-given. If the state separates itself from the source of its authority, God, then it has no authority whatsoever. I believe God tolerates secular states through His mercy, but we know not for how long this will continue.

These are very difficult times and many of the teachings of the Church are getting distorted.

This is true, we have no God-given right to false worship or blasphemy. (Ignorance might mitigate punishment for such a thing, we hope) The state may say it is a right, but like I said, they have no authority to declare permission for things God has forbidden (See the first commandment). And VII calling such a thing a ‘right’ certainly does confuse the matter that much more.

Thank you for bringing up this topic, the Catholic teaching on this is widely ignored due to its unpopularity, and is very misunderstood and foreign due to many of our American upbringings.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

me:

“Sometimes teachings of the Church in different times can APPEAR to be different to each other but because you are applying Catholic principles to a different era with much different circumstances things do APPEAR to be substantially different when in fact they are NOT.”

This is the argument.

We already know that people and states have no rights to compel someone to convert to the true religion. Faith is a gift from God not something we give by the sword.

If there is no religious freedom whatsover then the state must use force to convert them or kill them for adhering to error. Therefore there must be some level of religious liberty.

The fact that the Church has tolerated false religions within her own borders and never advocated executing all of the infidels for being non-Catholics to force them to convert means that there has always been some sort of religious liberty granted by the Church.

The Catechism
The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities” CCC (2108).

Now given the fact that we live in a Secular age we must affirm our own right to adhere to Truth against persecution.

The only other thing that I can say is that percieving errors in a document of a council approved by a Pope as ecumenical is probably one of the most dangerous things you can do. Rather say I don’t understand than pit yourself against a council.

I would recommend reading of Bishop von Ketteler who written and was never condemned by the Popes. Instead he was accepted as a great Bishop. opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-religious-freedom-part-i.html

Paul

 

[Unitas]

If there is no religious freedom whatsover then the state must use force to convert them or kill them for adhering to error. Therefore there must be some level of religious liberty.

Or deport them.

You seem to think that there are only two possibilities:

A: a state adopts religious freedom and all religions are equal, or

B: a state suppresses religious freedom and forcefully converts or kills all non Catholics.

This same reasoning is used to depose Christ from His social kingship, that adopting option A is for the greater good than adopting option B. There is an in-between. It is not one or the other.

However, religious tolerance is a far different thing than religious freedom. What the Church calls for is tolerance and the right not to be forcefully converted; which the Church has always condemned. But to call this tolerance a “right” is wrong, as God did not gives us the freedom of false worship or to blaspheme. I see it as an indult to the ignorant, not as an inalienable right. And the Vatican’s usage of the word “right” in this regard confuses things. It can make people think it is a God-given right when it is not, when they really mean toleration. I don’t call VII heresy, I just call it poorly worded.

 

[rescath]

Yes, to an extent, doctrines can be applied in different ways to different circumstances, but one runs a very real risk of ending up with a relativistic mentality, i.e. that the truth can change depending on the circumstances.

In the case of Dignitatis Humane, yes, OK, false religions can be tolerated to the extent that it’s impractical to do otherwise, and, yes, the faith must be embraced with free will to be salvific, but DH crosses the line when it declares that people have a RIGHT to promulgate their false religions. That appears to completely contradict prior Catholic teaching on the subject. I use the word appears because this is my own opinion–obviously, but I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of DH which reconciles it with previous Catholic teaching.

 

[ncjohn]

… but DH crosses the line when it declares that people have a RIGHT to promulgate their false religions. That appears to completely contradict prior Catholic teaching on the subject.

Can you please cite the section that says this? In my many readings of the document I don’t remember seeing it saying any such thing.

As Unitas noted, DH–as well as previous Church teachings–is about the State not coercing people with regard to religion.

Unitas:

What the Church calls for is tolerance and the right not to be forcefully converted; which the Church has always condemned.

I cannot recall any place in it that declares a “right” to do evil or to proclaim false religion though I have seen numerous people claim it does.

While I personally don’t have a problem with the way the document uses the word “right”, I have been in enough discussions with people interpreting the use in ways other than what the Church says it means to know that there is indeed some confusion. I do suspect though that much of the confusion comes as a result of some intentionally trying to read something into a document they just don’t like in an attempt to discredit it. In many cases those arguments are then just picked up second-hand and repeated without critically examining the document itself.

To be fair though, there have also been many on the other extreme who have tried to read into the document a call to “revolution” and a relativist stance that was also not the intended meaning. There is no call for all religions to be considered equal; there is only a call for people to not be persecuted for their choice of religion or coereced to join a state religion.

The Church has been very consistent in its explanation of the document though there are plenty out there who want to put their own spin on what they think it really (wink, wink) means. It saddens me greatly to see the great division and great harm that this has caused.

Peace,

 

[SFD]

Fr. Ralph Wiltgen:

On December 3, Monsignor Giuseppe di Meglio, an Italian specialist on international law, circulated a letter stating that the voting figures indicated “that for a notable number of Council Fathers the teaching and practical applications of the schema are not acceptable in conscience. In fact, the fundamental principle of the schema has remained unchanged despite the amendments that have been introduced: that is, the right of error … Since the declaration on religious freedom has no dogmatic value, the negative votes of the Council Fathers will constitute a factor of great importance for future studies of the declaration itself, and particularly for the interpretation to be placed upon it.”

Father Courtney Murray described Monsignor di Meglio’s position as the “tolerance” theory, based on the principle that “truth has exclusive rights and error no rights”. Those who held this position, he said, were of the opinion that Catholicism should be the State religion whenever possible. Where this was not possible, non-Catholic religions were merely to be tolerated as the “lesser evil.” By contrast, the supporters of what Father Courtney Murray called “the more contemporary theory of religious freedom” were convinced that this freedom was “an exigency of the dignity of the human person.” They favored religious freedom not for opportunistic reasons, but because it was sound doctrine.

Emphasis mine.

SFD

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Or deport them.

Well what is the difference, the state has no right to deprive them of their homes.

Its different when it was in the middle ages. Europe had a unity of Faith and this was why heresy could be considered a civil disorder as well. Not only that but then to become a heretic was to revolt against the promises made to God in baptism.

For what its worth I would have burned Luther,Calvin and the lot of them. But nowadays the state can’t go around discriminating against people who have a wrong belief in such a way that people would be under compulsion to convert. Even though I would not necessarily be against prohibiting non-catholics to vote and stuff like that.

You seem to think that there are only two possibilities:

A: a state adopts religious freedom and all religions are equal, or

B: a state suppresses religious freedom and forcefully converts or kills all non Catholics.

This same reasoning is used to depose Christ from His social kingship, that adopting option A is for the greater good than adopting option B. There is an in-between. It is not one or the other.

However, religious tolerance is a far different thing than religious freedom. What the Church calls for is tolerance and the right not to be forcefully converted; which the Church has always condemned. But to call this tolerance a “right” is wrong, as God did not gives us the freedom of false worship or to blaspheme. I see it as an indult to the ignorant, not as an inalienable right. And the Vatican’s usage of the word “right” in this regard confuses things. It can make people think it is a God-given right when it is not, when they really mean toleration. I don’t call VII heresy, I just call it poorly worded.

Strictly speaking freedom of will is a right. This free-will must include the possibility of choosing wrong without compulsion for it to be actually free.

No man woman or child has a “right” to commit sin and believe wrong. But they do have the “right” to have the ability to make that choice. They also need to be able to make that choice without compulsion which includes freedom from fear of deportation/killing and whatever else such state might do to stamp down on false religions.

When V2 talks of this right as pertaining to the dignity of the human person the council is talking about the God-given gift of free-will. In no way can it be interpreted as a God-given “right” to be wrong and do wrong, because those things will be punished by Him.

I like your use of the term “indult to the ignorant” I am in complete agreement with you on that. Vatican 2 is clearly badly worded in many areas.

BUT the idea that some people put forward that a council can be in error or that there is no dogmatic value in a statement is wrong. The only reasoning one could use to say that a council statement has no dogmatic value is in the sense that it is unclear what the true meaning is, but not in the sense that the council statement is wrong.

SFD:

Father Courtney Murray described Monsignor di Meglio’s position as the “tolerance” theory, based on the principle that “truth has exclusive rights and error no rights”. Those who held this position, he said, were of the opinion that Catholicism should be the State religion whenever possible.

I agree with that,it is completely lamentable that europe which once was catholic is no longer.

SFD:

Where this was not possible, non-Catholic religions were merely to be tolerated as the “lesser evil.”

I agree with this too.

SFD:

By contrast, the supporters of what Father Courtney Murray called “the more contemporary theory of religious freedom” were convinced that this freedom was “an exigency of the dignity of the human person.” They favored religious freedom not for opportunistic reasons, but because it was sound doctrine.

It is the same thing, one must in some situations tolerate religious error because otherwise you violate someones right to freedom from compulsion in the matter of religion. This freedom of will is an "exigency of the dignity of the human person."

This is why I said at the beginning that

me:

“Sometimes teachings of the Church in different times can APPEAR to be different to each other but because you are applying Catholic principles to a different era with much different circumstances things do APPEAR to be substantially different when in fact they are NOT.”

The reasons why these issues are a problem to understand today in the light of the past is down to the complete change in the circumstances.

God Bless

Paul

 

[jfoges]

If you read the Catechism carefully on religious freedom you can see that it does not advocate a total seperation of church and state as exists in American constitutional law.

The Catechism says that there should be a certain amount of religious liberty “within just limits” as a matter of “civil rights”. I take this to mean that there is a limit to how intrusive the state should be in someone’s private beliefs. But the Catechism also states that this liberty is not “unlimited”. I take this to mean that if someone was spreading ideas that were causing harm to others, such as heretical ideas, that this would be going beyond what the civil authorities should allow.

It also says that this right to religious liberty is only a civil right, not a moral right to error.

In short, what the Catechism says about religious liberty is the same was what the Church has always taught.

 

[SFD]

PaulAndrew83:

Strictly speaking freedom of will is a right.

This is incorrect, I believe.

PaulAndrew83:

This free-will must include the possibility of choosing wrong without compulsion for it to be actually free.

Free will allows you do anything that you possibly can. There is no “right” involved here at all.

PaulAndrew83:

No man woman or child has a “right” to commit sin and believe wrong. But they do have the “right” to have the ability to make that choice.

Again, they have the ability simply because of free will. What they have a right to do is something entirely different. You have these two things mixed up and you seem to be using them interchangably.

SFD

 

[SFD]

PaulAndrew83:

BUT the idea that some people put forward that a council can be in error or that there is no dogmatic value in a statement is wrong. The only reasoning one could use to say that a council statement has no dogmatic value is in the sense that it is unclear what the true meaning is, but not in the sense that the council statement is wrong.

Fr. Ralph Wiltgen:

On December 3, Monsignor Giuseppe di Meglio, an Italian specialist on international law, circulated a letter stating that the voting figures indicated "that for a notable number of Council Fathers the teaching and practical applications of the schema are not acceptable in conscience. In fact, the fundamental principle of the schema has remained unchanged despite the amendments that have been introduced: that is, the right of error … Since the declaration on religious freedom has no dogmatic value, the negative votes of the Council Fathers will constitute a factor of great importance for future studies of the declaration itself, and particularly for the interpretation to be placed upon it."

This was the way the modernists and liberals got it “accepted”… they said it was not “dogmatic”…only “pastoral”.

SFD

 

[PaulAndrew83]

This is incorrect, I believe.

Free will allows you do anything that you possibly can. There is no “right” involved here at all.

Again, they have the ability simply because of free will. What they have a right to do is something entirely different. You have these two things mixed up and you seem to be using them interchangably.

SFD

Our Free will is a “right” and it is a gift from God. Free will must have the possibility to choose the wrong and the right without compulsion from without. Otherwise it is not free will. Your statement that free will is not a right your believe is Calvinistic. We have a free will. This is a fact. It is a God given gift.

As for what people have a right to do being entirely different from the concept of free will, is true only on certain levels.

What is certain is that we cannot compel people to convert for this is a mohammedan thing to do.

What we are left is a quandary between freedom from compulsion in the matter of religion, free will and what states may allow in their boundary’s. There has to be some level of toleration which is in a way the exact same thing as freedom.

The behavior of the Church throughout history has been consistent. Jews and the Pagans(country people still not Christian who were still so until the middle of the fifth century) were never expelled from the borders of Christian Rome when the Popes had temporal power there and when Christian nations expelled Jews the Popes condemned it.

As should be clear from the posts here that there is some difficulty understanding the correct teaching and one cannot do as the Greeks did with Constance, repudiate the council after signing it.

Paul

 

[RJames]

Our Free will is a “right” and it is a gift from God. Free will must have the possibility to choose the wrong and the right without compulsion from without. Otherwise it is not free will. Your statement that free will is not a right your believe is Calvinistic. We have a free will. This is a fact. It is a God given gift.

As for what people have a right to do being entirely different from the concept of free will, is true only on certain levels.

What is certain is that we cannot compel people to convert for this is a mohammedan thing to do.

What we are left is a quandary between freedom from compulsion in the matter of religion, free will and what states may allow in their boundary’s. There has to be some level of toleration which is in a way the exact same thing as freedom.

The behavior of the Church throughout history has been consistent. Jews and the Pagans(country people still not Christian who were still so until the middle of the fifth century) were never expelled from the borders of Christian Rome when the Popes had temporal power there and when Christian nations expelled Jews the Popes condemned it.

As should be clear from the posts here that there is some difficulty understanding the correct teaching and one cannot do as the Greeks did with Constance, repudiate the council after signing it.

Paul

Free will is certainly a gift from God, as are all the good things we enjoy.

I don’t think however, that free will is a right. Gifts are given freely; they don’t come from rights.

Let me ask you this question:

We all agree that Adam had free will. He had the free will to eat of the forbidden fruit. Did he have a right to eat the forbidden fruit?

 

[Genesis315]

Here is a good article by the Archbishop of Mainz in the 19th century–he was highly praised by Pope Leo XIII. He writes on this topic primarily drawing from the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas. The Second Vatican Council’s declaration in this regard contains the same immutable principles expressed here as well as the same practical decisions based on the particular circumstances of modernity (especially that of religiously diverse nations):

opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-religious-freedom-part-i.html

(notice, Dignitatis Humanae also only teaches concerning those who believe in and seek to worship God–it doesn’t mention atheism, idolatry, etc.)

 

[Genesis315]

The Holy Father, in one of his early addresses on becoming Pope also spoke of this issue (the whole address is to the Roman Curia on the hermeneutic of continuity):
Benedict XVI:

It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

 

[RJames]

The Holy Father, in one of his early addresses on becoming Pope also spoke of this issue (the whole address is to the Roman Curia on the hermeneutic of continuity):

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

The issue of the conflict of Dignitatus Humanae and Quanta Cura must be addressed. Fr. Brian Harrison wrote an entire book trying to reconcile the two. What you posted from Pope Benedict XVI does not address that issue.

 

[Genesis315]

The issue of the conflict of Dignitatus Humanae and Quanta Cura must be addressed. Fr. Brian Harrison wrote an entire book trying to reconcile the two. What you posted from Pope Benedict XVI does not address that issue.

Sure it does. The article I posted above from a bishop praised by Leo XIII also does so (and it was before DH). Look–there are two basic principles–man cannot be forced to come to faith and man cannot be prevented from coming to faith. That’s what religious liberty is all about. Pius IX was condemning the radical Libertines who stated that freedom of religion was absolute and that the state could never suppress false religious activity. He was primarily concerned with Catholic nations where Liberals and Protestants would attempt to enter and publically attack the true religion sowing their disunity–thus, they harmed the common good. They claimed this was their right and that such Catholic nations should abandon their Catholic identity for one of religious indifferentism–he condemned both ideas. This same policy was followed after Vatican II in certain Latin American countries as well (with approval of Paul VI) before they too abandoned their Catholic identity.

But as Pius XII taught, this is not an absolute norm of action, but must be subject to the demands of the common good–that is, the state can suppress false religious activities only when the commn good requires. In pluralistic societies it often harms the common good.

DH, if we read the relatio, is dealing with specific circumstances in modern, pluralistic societies and is offering the best approach to protect authentic rights and advance the Gospel message in those circumstances (forcibly repressing someone’s worship of God often hardens their heart against the truth you want to share with them and which they must freely assent to, for example).

That’s what Pope Benedict was saying above–the teaching on religious liberty is one of practical necesseity, not absolute metaphysical truth. It might be compared to the fact that the Church teaches absolutely that the state may use the death penalty, but argues circumstantially that the common good requires it not to be used in order to foster that respect for life, etc. Similarly, in an absolute sense, the state may restrict false religious activity, but the circumstantially the common good requires it not to in order to foster the authentic liberties that faith must be free, that everyone has the right and duty to come to God freely, that people should use peaceful means whenever possible to settle religious differences, etc.

Again, please read the article by the Archbishop of Mainz (from the 19th century) I posted above.

Also, I wrote this for another forum which may be helpful (sorry, it’s a bit convoluted) as it shows how the appropriate magisterial texts relate to each other (it’s two posts long).

christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=40437782&postcount=10

christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=40437811&postcount=11

 

[Genesis315]

Cardinal Newman also defended Quanta Cura and in doing so explains what it is condemning–a particular universal/absolute proposition:
John Henry Newman:

“Liberty of conscience and worship, is the inherent right of all men. 2. It ought to be proclaimed in every rightly constituted society. 3. It is a right to all sorts of liberty (omnimodam libertatem) such, that it ought not to be restrained by any authority, ecclesiastical or civil, as far as public speaking, printing, or any other public manifestation of opinions is concerned.”

Now, is there any government on earth that could stand the strain of such a doctrine as this? It starts by taking for granted that there are certain Rights of man; Mr. Gladstone so considers, I believe; but other deep thinkers of the day are quite of another opinion; {274} however, if the doctrine of the proposition is true, then the right of conscience, of which it speaks, being inherent in man, is of universal force—that is, all over the world—also, says the proposition, it is a right which must be recognised by all rightly constituted governments. Lastly, what is the right of conscience thus inherent in our nature, thus necessary for all states? The proposition tells us. It is the liberty of every one to give public utterance, in every possible shape, by every possible channel, without any let or hindrance from God or man, to all his notions whatsoever Note 2].

Which of the two in this matter is peremptory and sweeping in his utterance, the author of this thesis himself, or the Pope who has condemned what the other has uttered? Which of the two is it who would force upon the world a universal? All that the Pope has done is to deny a universal, and what a universal! a universal liberty to all men to say out whatever doctrines they may hold by preaching, or by the press, uncurbed by church or civil power. Does not this bear out what I said in the foregoing section of the sense in which Pope Gregory denied a “liberty of conscience”? It is a liberty of self-will. What if a man’s conscience embraces the duty of regicide? or infanticide? or free love? You may say that in England the good sense of the nation would stifle and extinguish such atrocities. True, but the proposition says that it is the very right of every one, by nature, in {275} every well constituted society. If so, why have we gagged the Press in Ireland on the ground of its being seditious? Why is not India brought within the British constitution? It seems a light epithet for the Pope to use, when he calls such a doctrine of conscience deliramentum: of all conceivable absurdities it is the wildest and most stupid. Has Mr. Gladstone really no better complaint to make against the Pope’s condemnations than this?

Perhaps he will say, Why should the Pope take the trouble to condemn what is so wild Note 3]? But he does: and to say that he condemns something which he does not condemn, and then to inveigh against him on the ground of that something else, is neither just nor logical.

newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section6.html

DH does not teach such an absolute and universal “dogma” as is condemned here (and QC does not condemn all liberty *in toto *to use Newman’s words earlier in the letter–condemning the thesis of absolute liberty absolutely does not condemn all liberty absolutely)–rather it affirms there are limits based on a just order and the common good (the CCC citing Quanta Cura says the same).