Can Vatican II's Teaching on Religious Liberty Be Reconciled with Tradition?

[diggerdomer]

We cannot pick and choose what parts of our faith we will adhere to. However, Religious Freedom is not part of the deposit of faith. Sacred Tradition preserves the Deposit of Faith. Religious Freedom is contradictory to more than one and a half thousand years of official Church teaching and has no place in Tradition for most of our history. Therefore it cannot justly be described as part of our Sacred Tradition. In fact, until the last 50 years, its reverse has been taught “always and everywhere.” If Religious Freedom was part of the Deposit of Faith, we would see it taught in our history, not condemned by our highest authorities and officially rejected again and again for well over a thousand years.

The Church can choose what level of authority it wants to teach with when it’s gathering in an ecumenical council. Ecumenical Councils don’t always act with the same level of authority. Vatican II chose to act in the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium, according to Pope Paul VI, not the Extraordinary. Therefore this council did not choose to use the power of the “highest teaching authority of the Catholic Church.” One of our recent popes said the council chose not to use an extraordinary dogmas because it wanted to speak with ordinary man on his own level, rather than talking down to him through infallibility.

It’s not a question of an ecumenical council (as understood by Catholics) to “choose” the level of teaching authority. De facto, an ecumenical council (as understood by Catholics) is the highest teaching authority the Church has. Whether or not this or that ecumenical council chose to teach infallibly is irrelevant in this respect.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I agree with you that it is the highest level of teaching authority. However, it has the right to decide for itself how much it will exert that authority and what level of authority it will give its words. It did not choose to speak infallibly. Infallibility is the highest level of authority, for as canon law states, to this is due submission of intellect and will and assent of faith. Non-infallible decrees from the Ordinary Magesterium, which an Ecumenical Council also has the right to deliver, require of Catholics submission of intellect and will but NOT assent of faith. This too is canon law, number 752, to be exact. And Pope Paul VI said that this is the level of authority the Second Vatican Council chose to exert.

Therefore we are not required to believe in Vatican II’s non-infallible teachings. The Ecumenical Council is indeed the highest teaching authority we have, but it is only giving its teachings the highest authority when it delivers dogmas. When it delivers non-infallible teachings through the Ordinary Magesterium, it conveys these with a lower level of authority binding on the faithful. That is canon law.

And an Ecumenical Council has the right to decide what level of authority it is going to speak in, and how binding on the faithful its teachings shall be.

 

[diggerdomer]

I agree with you that it is the highest level of teaching authority. However, it has the right to decide for itself how much it will exert that authority and what level of authority it will give its words. It did not choose to speak infallibly. Infallibility is the highest level of authority, for as canon law states, to this is due submission of intellect and will and assent of faith. Non-infallible decrees from the Ordinary Magesterium, which an Ecumenical Council also has the right to deliver, require of Catholics submission of intellect and will but NOT assent of faith. This too is canon law, number 752, to be exact. And Pope Paul VI said that this is the level of authority the Second Vatican Council chose to exert.

Therefore we are not required to believe in Vatican II’s non-infallible teachings. The Ecumenical Council is indeed the highest teaching authority we have, but it is only giving its teachings the highest authority when it delivers dogmas. When it delivers non-infallible teachings through the Ordinary Magesterium, it conveys these with a lower level of authority binding on the faithful. That is canon law.

And an Ecumenical Council has the right to decide what level of authority it is going to speak in, and how binding on the faithful its teachings shall be.

I’m concerned that your post seems to imply (correct me if I’m wrong) that only teachings taught infallibly are essentially binding on the faithful.

Ecumenical Councils, as understood by the Catholic Church, are the highest form of teaching authority regardless of whether this or that pronouncement is taught infallibly.

Can you clarify your thoughts? Are you saying that the teachings of an ecumenical council (as understood by Catholics) are open to individual interpretation/adherence?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’m concerned that your post seems to imply (correct me if I’m wrong) that only teachings taught infallibly are essentially binding on the faithful.

Everything in Sacred Tradition and the Deposit of Faith is binding on the faithful. We have to give all these things the assent of faith. Canon law says that we are not required to believe in non-infallible teachings the College of Bishops provides us, though we are required to give these teachings “religious submission.”

Ecumenical Councils, as understood by the Catholic Church, are the highest form of teaching authority regardless of whether this or that pronouncement is taught infallibly.

Not every teaching they give is of equal authority. They can give different levels of authority to their teaching if they want. They are the highest authority, so they can do that. They can choose to give a decree that is not binding on the faithful’s faith while it still requires submission of their intellects and wills. That is canon law. And that is what they did in Vatican II, just as they’ve done in many other Ecumenical Councils before. Such as the Fourth Lateran Council’s Decree on Heretics, which was also probably binding on the faithful to yield it “religious submission” but not “assent of faith.”

Can you clarify your thoughts?

I’ve been trying . . . Maybe Ultima Ratio can do a better job at explaining this position.

Are you saying that the teachings of an ecumenical council (as understood by Catholics) are open to individual interpretation/adherence?

I’m saying that an ecumenical council has the right to give decrees of different levels of authority to the faithful. An ecumenical council is the Church’s highest authority, as you say, but it doesn’t always choose to exert its fullest authority, and not all the decrees it gives are binding on us to believe. Dogmas are binding on Catholics on every level, for they are the highest expression of authority. They are revealed through the Extraordinary Magesterium or the Ordinary Universal Magesterium. Decrees of the Ordinary Magesterium are of a lower level of authority, and Ecumenical Councils often give these. We are required to give decrees of the Ordinary Magesterium submission of intellect and will, but not assent of faith, according to Canon 752. So yes, sometimes we are allowed to disagree with an Ecumenical Council, though we must always obey it. Canon Law says so. It says that when the College of Bishops acts in the power of the Ordinary Magesterium rather than the Extraordinary, Catholics are not required to yield the “assent of faith.” In other words, we don’t have to agree with these teachings. That’s what the Canon Law says!

The Church decides what we have to agree with and what we don’t, and the Church said we are required to give Vatican II “religious submission” but not the “assent of faith.” It encourages us to give our assent of faith, of course, but it does not require us to do so.

 

[diggerdomer]

Everything in Sacred Tradition and the Deposit of Faith is binding on the faithful. We have to give all these things the assent of faith. Canon law says that we are not required to believe in non-infallible teachings the College of Bishops provides us, though we are required to give these teachings “religious submission.”

Not every teaching they give is of equal authority. They can give different levels of authority to their teaching if they want. They are the highest authority, so they can do that. They can choose to give a decree that is not binding on the faithful’s faith while it still requires submission of their intellects and wills. That is canon law. And that is what they did in Vatican II, just as they’ve done in many other Ecumenical Councils before. Such as the Fourth Lateran Council’s Decree on Heretics, which was also probably binding on the faithful to yield it “religious submission” but not “assent of faith.”

I’ve been trying . . . Maybe Ultima Ratio can do a better job at explaining this position.

I’m saying that an ecumenical council has the right to give decrees of different levels of authority to the faithful. An ecumenical council is the Church’s highest authority, as you say, but it doesn’t always choose to exert its fullest authority, and not all the decrees it gives are binding on us to believe. Dogmas are binding on Catholics on every level, for they are the highest expression of authority. They are revealed through the Extraordinary Magesterium or the Ordinary Universal Magesterium. Decrees of the Ordinary Magesterium are of a lower level of authority, and Ecumenical Councils often give these. We are required to give decrees of the Ordinary Magesterium submission of intellect and will, but not assent of faith, according to Canon 752. So yes, sometimes we are allowed to disagree with an Ecumenical Council, though we must always obey it. Canon Law says so. It says that when the College of Bishops acts in the power of the Ordinary Magesterium rather than the Extraordinary, Catholics are not required to yield the “assent of faith.” In other words, we don’t have to agree with these teachings. That’s what the Canon Law says!

The Church decides what we have to agree with and what we don’t, and the Church said we are required to give Vatican II “religious submission” but not the “assent of faith.” It encourages us to give our assent of faith, of course, but it does not require us to do so.

One note, the Church can teach infallibly via the Ordinary Magisterium.

Anyway, I am well aware of the levels of Church teaching, varied authorities, etc. I think I understand your points, but I guess what I just don’t get is why the emphasis on what we don’t “have to” believe but "only"religiously assent to (or whatever unique terms from canon law etc. we want to use). It seems your post emphasizes how much freedom Catholic have to disagree with the Magisterium. I guess I just prefer to approach things as trying to understand why the Church teaches this or that, and at what level authority, as a way to lead to unity, not to parse out what we are free as individuals to pick and choose.

Probably just different ways of approaching Church teaching. Thanks again for your clarifications.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

One note, the Church can teach infallibly via the Ordinary Magisterium.

Anyway, I am well aware of the levels of Church teaching, varied authorities, etc. I think I understand your points, but I guess what I just don’t get is why the emphasis on what we don’t “have to” believe but "only"religiously assent to (or whatever unique terms from canon law etc. we want to use). It seems your post emphasizes how much freedom Catholic have to disagree with the Magisterium. I guess I just prefer to approach things as trying to understand why the Church teaches this or that, and at what level authority, as a way to lead to unity, not to parse out what we are free as individuals to pick and choose.

Probably just different ways of approaching Church teaching. Thanks again for your clarifications.

I understand your criticism. I prefer your way of approaching Church teaching. If I could apply it in good conscience when reading Dignitatis Humanae, I would. I do honestly want to agree with everything the Church has taught, fallible or infallible. I examine the fallibility and infallibility, and what we have to believe and what we don’t on this issue for the following reasons.

1. There is a clear contradiction between current Church teaching about religious freedom and its historical teaching about religious freedom. I study history a lot and it is impossible for me, while looking at the historical documents and practices of the Church, to maintain intellectual integrity while saying its teaching on this matter hasn’t changed. I could only reject my reason in this matter if the Church had infallibly defined Dignitatis Humanae. If the Church had defined Dignitatis Humanae, I would spurn what my reason and the evidence of history is telling me and would instead believe what the Church has said out of faith.

This is a harder issue for me than it is for you because I don’t believe in religious freedom. It is clearly contradictory, in my view, to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Reason, and all our highest Church authorities (popes and at least one ecumenical council) for the entirety of Christian history before the last 50 years. I can argue your ear off on each of these points, there is so much evidence. To me, religious freedom is irrational and very dangerous, and since its establishment, and the separation of church and state, it has unleashed many very grave evils. Therefore the fact that the last three popes and Vatican II promoted religious freedom as intrinsically good is very tough for me.

It is not tough for most people because in modern society, we grow up with religious freedom and it seems natural to us because all our governments teach it and societies extol it. We grow up learning its virtues in school and hear them repeated from every quarter. I did. For most of my life I firmly believed in religious freedom. But eventually I learned more, started seeing another side to the story that I’d never considered before, and the evidence against religious freedom became monumental the more I studied the issue. This was all personal study, by the way, just me and God. No traditionalists were advising me or forwarding me evidence or arguments. That time of discovery (which, by the way, was the same time I came to the truth of Catholicism ) was a very, very hard part of my life.

Because in my view the evidence against religious freedom is monumental, this is a very hard issue for me. For most people, embracing Vatican II all the way is simple, because Dignitatis Humanae is simply teaching what our governments and societies have been adhering to for centuries. For about three centuries, or at least the last two, religious freedom has filled almost all the Western world. So for several generations, things have been this way. That makes it easy for people to accept Dignitatis Humanae. When they do so, they’re just swimming with the tide, adhering to what they’ve grown up with and what consequently seems naturally good to them. They’re just believing what everyone believes. It’s simple and easy and natural. Our upbringing and surroundings are such a powerful force on our minds. For me, this situation no longer exists, though. So while it’s easy for people to comfortably sit back and say, “Just try to agree with the Vatican!”, for me that’s throwing me against a wall, not leading me through a door. The Vatican for centuries has said the opposite of what it’s saying now and I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly against religious freedom. Therefore whether or not the Church has spoken infallibly on this point matters a great deal to me.

1. Because of the intellectual quandery this apparent contradiction in Church teaching has thrown me into, and because I don’t believe in religious freedom, I have to examine the level of teaching authority the Church has spoken with on the matter. I hate to do it. I hate all divisions of faith. That’s part of the reason I left Protestantism, because I love Catholic unity in truth so much.

Continued in the next message.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I want to be a Catholic who maintains intellectual integrity while at the same time fulfilling all the obligations of my faith and obeying the Church faithfully. Therefore I need to know whether I am required to believe in religious freedom or not. The answer to that question appears to be no. Because of my perspective and the journey I’ve come down, that is important to me, while others will just shrug it off and say, “Who cares? We should just agree with them.” The Church certainly can be right when saying things without the protection of infallibility. But because of the evidence before me, I cannot agree with the Church on this point unless this teaching is infallibly defined and I’m required to believe it. If that was the situation, I would reject my reason and follow the Church out of sheer faith.

This situation is a tough situation for me, a “thorn in my flesh,” you might say. I hope and believe I’m a faithful Catholic though, and if I am required to believe in religious freedom, I would very much like to know it. I submit myself to the Church I love.

As far as I can see from the evidence, religious freedom is not a truly Catholic teaching and Vatican II did not obligate Catholics to believe in it, but rather, past Church teaching obligates me to reject claims that it is good. Therefore out of submission to the Church, I don’t believe I can agree with Dignitatis Humanae, though I will certainly obey all the Church’s commands and give Vatican II the “religious submission” she requires, as always. And I praise God for the Church’s wisdom. I do love the Church.

 

[yosupman]

Lief,

I see you are really struggling, and I’m sorry if I offended you in other posts. I think you hit the nail on the head, that all humanity is working through. The problem with modern society, is that it has changed so fast, humanity doesn’t have time to breath. In the last 100 years alone, America went from a agricultural economy with the majority of people living on farms in big families, to broken families, women working outside the home, contraception, pornography, children move far from home, no extended families, complexity of life.

Governments also have changed dramaticaly in the last 100 years. At the beginning of the twentieth century we still had empires, kings, other traditional governments. Now that’s all out the window. It would be great to go back to the traditional form of government, to which the traditional teaching on religious freedom was applicable. But today, the gennie is out of the box.

The same thing can be said with states rights, and the civil war. Many of my friends hate the fact states rights is trampled on, and would like states to have the right to secede. Well, unfortunately, we have to deal prudentially where we are at today.

Same thing with religious freedom. The church at Vatican II was probably trying to cope with our modern world we live in today. The church was making judgements on how does religious freedom work in our society today, based on our Catholic faith. If we did deny other religious freedom, it would work to our harm. The church knows, if you give others freedom, then the church will have more freedom also. The church does acknowledge that freedom cannot mean breaking natural law, through harming others, either through abuse, or even oppressive preaching (like some sects do, especially in south america).

The church through the magisterium is developing an orthodox way to evangelize the world today.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Okay, suppose I’m a Catholic monarch, and most of the population in my country is Catholic. I’m considering taking the following actions:

(1) Shutting down all non-Catholic churches and other houses of worship.

and/or

(2) Making it illegal not to be a Catholic, punishable with either (2a) an annual fine or (2b) imprisonment.

---

Under Catholic teaching, is action (1) legitimate but civilly imprudent, or actually immoral and against God’s will? Same questions for action (2a) and (2b).

It seems to me that prior to Vatican II, the general answer would have been all three possible actions were legitimate but civilly imprudent, but after Vatican II, I’m not so sure what the answer is now.

i think the issue is: did the Church declared that man have a right to preach err and lead others to it? the CC is here to protect the people adn to lead them into the Truth of God. the Church is here to declare the Truth to all men that they come to know Christ.
now if the Church declares that all religions have the right to propagate err and mislead many to into err, then this is not a good thing. it puts the Church in a difficult situation. it is like saying there is no Truth. anyone is ok wherever they are or choose.

all nations are to be subject to Christ’s Kingdom. how is this going to be done? by supporting the Church that Jesus commanded 2000 yrs ago.

today, relativism is in the rising due to the denial of One Truth. the Church must fight against the evil lies of the devil whose only intention is to discredit the Church Jesus built.

the Church documents must have emphasys on the True teachings of the Church, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and not many churches. i dont care if my neighboor decides to follow other religions i just dont care. but the teachings of the Church should be the same as the Old. one must be in the CC to follow God in Truth. this cannot be changed.

 

[yosupman]

the Church documents must have emphasys on the True teachings of the Church, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and not many churches. i dont care if my neighboor decides to follow other religions i just dont care. but the teachings of the Church should be the same as the Old. one must be in the CC to follow God in Truth. this cannot be changed.

This is paragraph 1 from DH:

First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you” (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

The Catholic Church begins DH with a restating of the perenial doctrine of the obligation of man to embrace the truth of the Catholic Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is paragraph 1 from DH:

First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you” (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

The Catholic Church begins DH with a restating of the perenial doctrine of the obligation of man to embrace the truth of the Catholic Church.

what does this means, we believe that this subsists in the CC? we believe? many believes many things, does it make it true. that is my point. there is no affirmation here, just that we believe. during JPII, protestants were given the impression that there was no True Church.
some of them are upset today because BXVI affirms the CC to be the True Church.

 

[yosupman]

i think the issue is: did the Church declared that man have a right to preach err and lead others to it? the CC is here to protect the people adn to lead them into the Truth of God. the Church is here to declare the Truth to all men that they come to know Christ.
now if the Church declares that all religions have the right to propagate err and mislead many to into err, then this is not a good thing. it puts the Church in a difficult situation. it is like saying there is no Truth. anyone is ok wherever they are or choose.

all nations are to be subject to Christ’s Kingdom. how is this going to be done? by supporting the Church that Jesus commanded 2000 yrs ago.

today, relativism is in the rising due to the denial of One Truth. the Church must fight against the evil lies of the devil whose only intention is to discredit the Church Jesus built.

the Church documents must have emphasys on the True teachings of the Church, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and not many churches. i dont care if my neighboor decides to follow other religions i just dont care. but the teachings of the Church should be the same as the Old. one must be in the CC to follow God in Truth. this cannot be changed.

what does this means, we believe that this subsists in the CC? we believe? many believes many things, does it make it true. that is my point. there is no affirmation here, just that we believe. during JPII, protestants were given the impression that there was no True Church.
some of them are upset today because BXVI affirms the CC to be the True Church.

If the magisterium states a doctrine is a belief of the Catholic church, that doctrine must be given divine and catholic faith. Belief is faith. Do you need a dictionary, or do I need to speak auf Deutsch?

 

[wisdomseeker]

If the magisterium states a doctrine is a belief of the Catholic church, that doctrine must be given divine and catholic faith. Belief is faith. Do you need a dictionary, or do I need to speak auf Deutsch?

no. i dont.

believe! many believe many things like i said before. the Truth is not based on my beliefs. get it?

the statement must be an affirmation and not a belief. if i say i believe the CC to be the True Church, others can say well and i believe that my church is the true church.

No, i say the CC is the True Church, not because i believe it is but because God has said and done.

 

[yosupman]

no. i dont.

believe! many believe many things like i said before. the Truth is not based on my beliefs. get it?

the statement must be an affirmation and not a belief. if i say i believe the CC to be the True Church, others can say well and i believe that my church is the true church.

No, i say the CC is the True Church, not because i believe it is but because God has said and done.

Do you understand what I just quoted?? The church, the magisterium is stating to you - Wisdom Seaker what you must believe. When the church propses a doctrine that you must believe in, the church is teaching an irreformable truth.

Now I agree with you, I cannot make something true because I belive in it. But at the same time I must believe what the church teaches as true as in paragraph 1 of DH, which I just quoted.

Anymore posts like this are just semantics.

 

[yosupman]

One more thing - you keep talking about “affirmations”. Daily affirmations was a skit on Saturday Night Live about a gay therapist that affirmed himself. …

Stuart Smalley said - “I’m smart enough, good enough, and gosh darnit…people like me”

 

[Lief_Erikson]

yosupman:

Lief,

I see you are really struggling, and I’m sorry if I offended you in other posts.

No problem . And thank-you.

yosupman:

This is paragraph 1 from DH:

First, the council professes its belief that God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. Thus He spoke to the Apostles: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have enjoined upon you” (Matt. 28: 19-20). On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

The Catholic Church begins DH with a restating of the perenial doctrine of the obligation of man to embrace the truth of the Catholic Church.

I definitely agree with paragraph 1 and thought Dignitatis Humanae started off quite well. It’s later material that appeared to contradict past teaching.

yosupman:

I think you hit the nail on the head, that all humanity is working through. The problem with modern society, is that it has changed so fast, humanity doesn’t have time to breath. In the last 100 years alone, America went from a agricultural economy with the majority of people living on farms in big families, to broken families, women working outside the home, contraception, pornography, children move far from home, no extended families, complexity of life.

Governments also have changed dramaticaly in the last 100 years. At the beginning of the twentieth century we still had empires, kings, other traditional governments. Now that’s all out the window. It would be great to go back to the traditional form of government, to which the traditional teaching on religious freedom was applicable. But today, the gennie is out of the box.

The same thing can be said with states rights, and the civil war. Many of my friends hate the fact states rights is trampled on, and would like states to have the right to secede. Well, unfortunately, we have to deal prudentially where we are at today.

Same thing with religious freedom. The church at Vatican II was probably trying to cope with our modern world we live in today. The church was making judgements on how does religious freedom work in our society today, based on our Catholic faith. If we did deny other religious freedom, it would work to our harm. The church knows, if you give others freedom, then the church will have more freedom also. The church does acknowledge that freedom cannot mean breaking natural law, through harming others, either through abuse, or even oppressive preaching (like some sects do, especially in south america).

The church through the magisterium is developing an orthodox way to evangelize the world today.

You know, I can’t see anything wrong with the approach you just described in your post. If the Church in Vatican II was just saying what you said just now, that would be fine, for the explanation for religious freedom you just gave is perfectly orthodox and consistent with historic Catholic teaching.

The problem is I don’t think that’s what Dignitatis Humanae was saying. Man do I wish I did! You didn’t describe religious freedom as an intrinsic good in your post just now, but rather as a necessity in modern culture because of the evil and confusion of our times.

There are no Catholic states today and secularism is rampant, so if religious freedom was removed, Catholics would suffer. That’s a valid justification for supporting religious freedom, and that’s why I support religious freedom in modern times. I don’t support it because I see it as good and an inherent right of man (which is how Dignitatis Humanae appears to describe it) but because I see it as something imperfect that we need right now to avoid widespread persecution and suppression of the truth.

We do need religious freedom today because the only viable alternatives modern society presents are horrible- financial ruin and prison. I think your post does a great job at explaining how a Catholic can support religious freedom today while still agreeing with the Church’s historic teaching on the issue, that religious freedom is wrong because societies and governments have a duty to submit to truth. While religious freedom is bad, it’s nowhere near so bad as the only viable alternatives modern society offers, so we need to support it.

So I agree with the concepts in your post, I just don’t think Dignitatis Humanae was teaching those, and that’s rough.

 

[yosupman]

Lief,

Ya know I spent too much freakin’ time on talking about infallibility, and I think our last few posts started to really get down to bidnez.

I think U B down wid it!!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

You know yosupman, your post seems to touch lightly on my ideas about just government. I see there as being three conditions of government in regard to ethics, and each of these categories is a “general” condition rather than something that covers all bases. There will be counter-examples because the realities are very complex, but I think these three conditions of government are accurate on a general level.

The best form of government is one that upholds the good and suppresses the evil. That’s what we had in the Medieval Ages (not that I’m saying they made no mistakes, of course). In some Catholic states or empires, we had it for a substantial part of the modern era as well. The Austrian and Spanish Empires, for instance, were steady Catholic governments that generally suppressed the evil and upheld the good, basing their laws on the ethics laid down by the Vatican.

A worse form of government is one the permits both good and evil. That’s what we’ve got right now. Today old laws against witchcraft, murder (through abortion and in places euthanasia), sexual immorality, blasphemy and idolatry have all been repealed in modern society and thrown away. This is a society that permits good and an increasing amount of evil. That’s the worse form of government.

The worst government upholds the evil and suppresses the good. That’s what our current society appears to be transitioning into, as one can see with the various anti-discrimination lawsuits against marriage businesses or churches for failing to provide services to homosexual couples, and doctors being pushed into ethical dilemmas by laws calling abortion a human right and trying to make doctors providers. This current effort in our Congress to get abortion and euthanasia federal funding paid for by tax dollars is another example of this, evil enforced rather than permitted.

The current governments seem to me to be transitioning throughout the west into the worst form, one that stops merely permitting the evil and actively upholds it while suppressing the good.

It is interesting to see the conditions of law and government becoming worse and worse as the influence of Catholicism and Christianity in general in government is stripped back.

“Immortale Dei” by Leo XIII talks about the evil of separation of church and state and how it will inevitably lead to just the kind of stripping religion from public places and true morality from law that we see happening all around us today.

yosupman:

Lief,

Ya know I spent too much freakin’ time on talking about infallibility, and I think our last few posts started to really get down to bidnez.

Well, I think knowing when infallibility is in operation is important to the discussion too, for if it is active then we are required to agree with Dignitatis Humanae and that changes the discussion from whether it’s right to how it’s right.

Still, I agree with you that the conversation’s taken an interesting turn!

yosupman:

I think U B down wid it!!

Uhhh . . . translation?

 

[wisdomseeker]

You know yosupman, your post seems to touch lightly on my ideas about just government. I see there as being three conditions of government in regard to ethics, and each of these categories is a “general” condition rather than something that covers all bases. There will be counter-examples because the realities are very complex, but I think these three conditions of government are accurate on a general level.

The best form of government is one that upholds the good and suppresses the evil. That’s what we had in the Medieval Ages (not that I’m saying they made no mistakes, of course). In some Catholic states or empires, we had it for a substantial part of the modern era as well. The Austrian and Spanish Empires, for instance, were steady Catholic governments that generally suppressed the evil and upheld the good, basing their laws on the ethics laid down by the Vatican.

A worse form of government is one the permits both good and evil. That’s what we’ve got right now. Today old laws against witchcraft, murder (through abortion and in places euthanasia), sexual immorality, blasphemy and idolatry have all been repealed in modern society and thrown away. This is a society that permits good and an increasing amount of evil. That’s the worse form of government.

The worst government upholds the evil and suppresses the good. That’s what our current society appears to be transitioning into, as one can see with the various anti-discrimination lawsuits against marriage businesses or churches for failing to provide services to homosexual couples, and doctors being pushed into ethical dilemmas by laws calling abortion a human right and trying to make doctors providers. This current effort in our Congress to get abortion and euthanasia federal funding paid for by tax dollars is another example of this, evil enforced rather than permitted.

The current governments seem to me to be transitioning throughout the west into the worst form, one that stops merely permitting the evil and actively upholds it while suppressing the good.

It is interesting to see the conditions of law and government becoming worse and worse as the influence of Catholicism and Christianity in general in government is stripped back.

“Immortale Dei” by Leo XIII talks about the evil of separation of church and state and how it will inevitably lead to just the kind of stripping religion from public places and true morality from law that we see happening all around us today.

Well, I think knowing when infallibility is in operation is important to the discussion too, for if it is active then we are required to agree with Dignitatis Humanae and that changes the discussion from whether it’s right to how it’s right.

Still, I agree with you that the conversation’s taken an interesting turn!

Uhhh . . . translation?

good post. i do agree that separation of Church and state has done much harm to the people. but whose idea was this?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

good post. i do agree that separation of Church and state has done much harm to the people. but whose idea was this?

Well, the Church taught it first. Pope Leo XIII talks about separation of church and state being wrong in “Immortale Dei” and explains why. Pius IX condemns it in his Syllabus of Errors, if I recall correctly. I’m sure their teaching is present in many other popes. The Church certainly didn’t practice anything like separation of church and state in the Medieval Ages, or for most of her history in the modern era either.

My thing about “three conditions of government” is just my thing, my point of view based on my reading of history. No one needs to agree with me.