Against Indifferentism

  • Thread starter Thread starter itsjustdave1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
continuation

Similarly, the Church may also tolerate the evil of false religions in order to maintain public order and thus prevent a greater evil from arising. Obviously, though, to the extent that the Church and state tolerate sin, the further it drifts from the ideal.

Pope Leo XIII: “with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burdens of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything except what is true and honest, she does not forbid the public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good…

“But, to judge aright” continues the Pope, “we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further it is from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such a case the motive of good is lacking. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times, the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, **and **entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true – that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.”( On the Nature of True Liberty, Pope Leo XIII).

So we can see that the Church does have options she can exercise when dealing with false religions: she can bring human law in perfect conformity with Divine Law and strictly forbid them; or, she can choose the lesser path of “tolerating” this great evil to avoid a greater evil.

But, what the Church can never do is to sanction as a “civil right”, false worship. Why can’t the Church do such a thing? Because when we speak of “rights”, we are speaking of “moral liberty” (not “natural liberty”). “For”, as Pope Leo XIII said, “right is a moral power.… Men have the right to freely and prudently propogate throughout the state whatsoever things are true and honorable… but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life” have no rights. The Church, says the Pope, “while not conceding any right to anything except what is true and honest… does not forbid the public authority to **tolerate **what is at variance with truth and justice” (Leo XIII)

So, while the Church will sometime find it prudent to tolerate evils, such as false worship, never can this evil be called a “right”, for no man has the moral right to violate the law of Almighty God.

It would also be wrong for the Church to claim that those who engage in false worship have a “right” not to be punished, or forbidden, by the public authority from violating the law of God (if the law is also sanctioned by the State). For the State has the right, delegated to It by God, to forbid violations of the first commandment (since human law should reflect Divine law). If anyone were to violate that just law of the State, the State would have the right to punish them. It would also obviously also have the right, to “prevent” anyone from violating the law. The subjects (who are bound by the just laws of the State) would then have the “moral duty” to follow the law, and therefore would not have a “right” to violate it, since, as Leo XIII said “a right is a moral power”, and no one has the “moral liberty” to violate a just law.

So, in conclusion, given the days in which we live, I’m sure both you and I would find it most prudent for the Church to tolerate the evil of false worship, rather than seek to forbid it and penalize those who violate the law of God.

Don’t you agree?
 
I thought I would post a portion of Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical “Libertas Praestantissimum” (On the Nature of True Liberty), which so accurately reflects the mind of the Church on this all important matter.

Pope Leo XIII: “But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.
  1. "What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of Liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.
  2. “Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority**. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny**. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference. Furthermore, with ambitious designs on sovereignty, tumult and sedition will be common amongst the people; and when duty and conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check. Of this we have almost daily evidence in the conflict with socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to bring about revolution. **It is for those, then, who are capable of forming a just estimate of things to decide whether such doctrines promote that true liberty **which alone is worthy of man, or rather, pervert and destroy it.”
continue
 
continuation

Pope Leo XIII: (17.) "There are, indeed, some adherents of liberalism who do not subscribe to these opinions, which we have seen to be fearful in their enormity, openly opposed to the truth, and the cause of most terrible evils. Indeed, very many amongst them, compelled by the force of truth, do not hesitate to admit that such liberty is vicious, nay, is simple license, whenever intemperate in its claims, to the neglect of truth and justice; and therefore they would have liberty ruled and directed by right reason, and consequently subject to the natural law and to the divine eternal law. But here they think they may stop, holding that man as a free being is bound by no law of God except such as He makes known to us through our natural reason. In this they are plainly inconsistent. For if-as they must admit, and no one can rightly deny-the will of the Divine Law-giver is to be obeyed, because every man is under the power of God, and tends toward Him as his end, it follows that no one can assign limits to His legislative authority without failing in the obedience which is due. Indeed, if the human mind be so presumptuous as to define the nature and extent of God’s rights and its own duties, reverence for the divine law will be apparent rather than real, and arbitrary judgment will prevail over the authority and providence of God. Man must, therefore, take his standard of a loyal and religious life from the eternal law; and from all and every one of those laws which God, in His infinite wisdom and power, has been pleased to enact, and to make known to us by such clear and unmistakable signs as to leave no room for doubt. And the more so because laws of this kind have the same origin, the same author, as the eternal law, are absolutely in accordance with right reason, and perfect the natural law. These laws it is that embody the government of God, who graciously guides and directs the intellect and the will of man lest these fall into error. Let, then, that continue to remain in a holy and inviolable union which neither can nor should be separated; and in all things-for this is the dictate of right reason itself-let God be dutifully and obediently served.
  1. "There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enact menu. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life."
continue…
 
continuation

Pope Leo XIII (19.) "To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.
  1. "But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue is concerned with those things which lead to God as man’s supreme and ultimate good; and therefore religion, which (as St. Thomas says) “performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honor”,(7) rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described [Liberty of worship] is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin.
  2. "This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority**. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges**. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man’s capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.
  3. "All this, however, We have explained more fully elsewhere. We now only wish to add the remark that liberty of so false a nature is greatly hurtful to the true liberty of both rulers and their subjects….” (Libertas Praestantissimum – On the Nature of True Liberty, Pope Leo XIII).
Thank goodness we have the clear teachings of the magesterium to guide us through the “murky waters” of our day
 
RSiscoe,

I had hoped we could resume this conversation by now. It seems you are still “suspended” from the forum. However, I wanted to offer my understanding that the tolerance of an evil is something good which does not mean that the evil tolerated is itself good.

You said:
40.png
RSiscoe:
So, in conclusion, given the days in which we live, I’m sure both you and I would find it most prudent for the Church to tolerate the evil of false worship, rather than seek to forbid it and penalize those who violate the law of God.

Don’t you agree?
Click to expand...
I agree.

Dignitatis Humanae states: "Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society

…the human person has a right to religious freedom. 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."

Thus the Church teaches that every human person, Catholic and non-Catholic, has a right to worship in the one true Catholic religion, and a right to immunity from forced conversions. The latter is an immunity from coercion in civil society such that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs,*** within due limits***. This is not a right to sin, but a right of immunity, so long as “just public order is observed,” from forced conversions against one’s will.

One can have a “right” only to what is good and true. It is good and true to practice Catholicism while tolerating non-Catholic worship, within due limits.

God Himself tolerates evil within due limits. Holy Writ is filled with examples of this. God only does that which is good. Thus, the mere toleration of evil is a good, not an evil in itself.

So the man who falsely believes that his left foot is divine and worthy of worship, commits a damnable evil. He has no right to commit such evil. Yet, he does have a right to immunity from being forced conversion, so long as “just public order” is preserved.
 
RSiscoe,

You said ealier…
I agree that a person who is following the truth should be allowed to do so, and that no one should hinder that person from following the truth.

I also believe that no one should be forced to convert to the Catholic faith, or to a false religion.

Where I think we disagree is that I say no one has the “liberty” to profess a false religion. And that if someone claims that religious liberty means a person has the “liberty” to embrace and profess a false religion that this is false religious liberty, which could be better described as “religious license”.

Do you see where we are disagreeing?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t see where we are disagreeing. I agree that no one has the freedom to profess a false religion. That is clearly sinful and deserves rebuking and contrary to justice.

As I see it, the Catholic Church only professes religious liberty of the sort we both agree upon: 1) freedom to worship in accord with Catholicism and 2) freedom from being forced to convert to the Catholic faith, or to a false religion.

The shoe-worshipper does not have freedom to worship his shoe. Yet he has freedom from being forced by civil society to convert against his beliefs so long as just public order be observed.
 
If Russia or China hindered public teaching of Islam, do they violate what the Church teaches about religious liberty?
Click to expand...
It depends upon whether “just public order is observed.”

Provided that just public order be observed, “the right to this immunity [from coersion] 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.” (DH, 2).

Just as it is good for God to tolerate error within due limits, so too it is good for men to do so. Ecclesiastical law gives this right to all humanity, not just Catholics. Thus, no civil law can violate this right with impunity. It is the Church that possesses the competence to judge when public order is no longer observed.

“… society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order.” (DH, 7) ****
***"***And it is, of course the Catholic Church which is the unique interpreter of what is objectively moral or immoral."[Fr. Brian W. Harrison, *Pius IX, Vatican II and Religious Liberty]
 
I agree with Itsjustdave–here are more good sources (I posted these in another thread as well):

Cardinal Newman on Conscience

Religious Freedom and Dignitatis Humanae: A Right to Pick Whatever ‘Religion’ You Wish?

Bishop de Smedt’s Relatio on Religious Liberty

Catholics and Religious Freedom: St. Thomas Aquinas vs. Know-Nothing Propaganda

Obligated, but Free: An Evaluation of Dignitatis Humanae

John Paul II on Newman’s teaching on conscience

Here is a page with additional articles (I recommend those by Fr. Brian Harrison).

Also see Catechism sections 2108, 2109.
 
As Pius XII said, “it belongs to them [theologians] to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”

How about we adopt this traditional approach instead of the complete novelty of trying to point out that the doctrine of living Teaching Authority is not found in Tradition?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top