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

[Russ_Ewert]

Hi everyone. My name is Russ, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, greeting.

The Spirit of God has me here to deliver to you the foundation for the New Jerusalem Catholic Church

alphaomeganewjerusalem.com/sitebuilder/images/newjerusalem.pdf

It is a new calendar holiday system to unite all the churches into the New Jerusalem Kingdom of God on Earth.

Highlights of the changes!

A fresh new calendar to unite all of us!

Alpha Omega New Year’s Day on the Vernal Equinox
March becomes the First month of the year. September becomes the Seventh month. Sept 11 is now 7-11 not 9-11.
Passover (March 1/14)
Easter (March 1/22)
Pentecost (May 3/8)
Day of Atonement (Sept 7/10)
Festival of Lights Christmas (Dec 1-8)
and much, much more!

Today’s date on it is Fri Nov 9/20

 

[yosupman]

Yosupman, you are not responsive. This post of yours does not answer the #176 and #177 of Ultima Ratio. Remember that Ultima agrees that none should be coerced. This post of yours only affirms the preceeding post of Ultima.

You know, Yosupman, Ultima has an excellent post on #177. It was a scholarly approach against your post especially in the concluding part of it. He asks you if you see the problem but until now you failed to see his logic./QUOTE

Maybe you’re having problems finger painting here. You need to connect the dots. I answered his overall question without writing 20 pages.

 

[yosupman]

That’s why the Church uses the term “toleration” when it speaks of a State permitting false worship. By saying the State can merely tolerate certain evils, it does not contradict the fact that it has the right to suppress the evil when it deems it prudent to do so. However, if it is said that man has a natural right to do the evil; and that, as a result of this “natural right”, the State has a duty to allow the evil, it removes the State right to suppress the evil when it deems fit.

We know this… the Church is the ultimate judge as to what is unchangeable as regards to what limit the government can take, and what principles are part of the deposit of faith. The church will never teach man has a “right” to do evil. Freedom is not a license to do evil. Its a license to do good. The church has no authority to change that teaching.

As far as what the church intends I think, its applying religious liberty to the context of the modern democratic state, as opposed to a monarchy, or country which is overwhelmingly catholic. In a country which is very pluralistic, it is encumbent upon the church to encourage laws which give citizens the civil rights to practice religion. this is good for the church.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Ultima,

The church makes it very clear in DH of the doctrine of non-coersion. In fact the church says that the doctrine of non-corersion is contained in the deposit of faith. I mean that no man can be forced to believe in Christ.

The chuch I don’t think is not saying you can never restrict freedom of worship. But see this statement from paragraph 15:

"The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family."

I think this teaching is based upon the current circumstances.

That’s a good quote to bring up backing your position. I’d like to see the context, though.

 

[diggerdomer]

Agreed!

I’m so grateful for the unity of faith we share in the Catholic Church! I’m much less concerned about this issue than I am about bringing others into full communion with the Church, the Orthodox, the Anglicans and all the scattered Protestant denominations around the world. I’m so glad Pope Benedict XVI is so focused on unifying the Church, that that is his great passion! We may live to see divisions that have rent the Church for centuries healed.

I’m also very glad the pope is reaching out to the SSPX as he is.

I’m glad, too, but I’m concerned that it may not work out if people do not accept Magisterial teaching (like Vatican II).

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’m glad, too, but I’m concerned that it may not work out if people do not accept Magisterial teaching (like Vatican II).

We’ll have to just wait and see the result of the dialogues.

I hate waiting .

 

[yosupman]

That’s a good quote to bring up backing your position. I’d like to see the context, though.

Paragraph 15 DH:

1. The fact is that men of the present day want to be able freely to profess their religion in private and in public. Indeed, religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in international documents.(38) The further fact is that forms of government still exist under which, even though freedom of religious worship receives constitutional recognition, the powers of government are engaged in the effort to deter citizens from the profession of religion and to make life very difficult and dangerous for religious communities.

This council greets with joy the first of these two facts as among the signs of the times. With sorrow, however, it denounces the other fact, as only to be deplored. The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family. All nations are coming into even closer unity. Men of different cultures and religions are being brought together in closer relationships. There is a growing consciousness of the personal responsibility that every man has. All this is evident. Consequently, in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thanks, yosupman. I think I’m going to reread Dignitatis Humanae sometime soon, to see if I can find that my first reading of it was incorrect.

If you have any more points you want to bring my attention to first, to further your case for how Dignitatis Humanae should be interpreted, I would very much like to hear them first so I can take them into consideration as I reread the document.

 

[Glenoy]

I answered his overall question without writing 20 pages.

All you need is just two or three letters to answer his question, the YES or NO since the question was a categorical one.

You are arguing with Ultima in the previous pages in this thread but now your recent posts, in my opinion, are no longer debatable with his stand. hmm… u c.

 

[Jacafamala]

But according to the new understanding of religious liberty, man has a *natural *right to publicly profess a false religion. They claim that it is not a “moral right”, but somehow still a natural right; and that the State has the duty to acknowledge as a “civil right”, this natural right that to religious liberty that man possesses. Do you see the problem?

Yes, I do see the problem. And can the teaching on religious liberty be reconciled with Tradition? I trust in time the Church will reconcile the issue here somehow.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m glad, too, but I’m concerned that it may not work out if people do not accept Magisterial teaching (like Vatican II).

is there any way we can contact SSPX and beg them to come back. :bowdown:

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima,

The church makes it very clear in DH of the doctrine of non-coersion. In fact the church says that the doctrine of non-corersion is contained in the deposit of faith. I mean that no man can be forced to believe in Christ.

No one claims that non-Catholics should be forced to believe. There is a distinction that needs to be made. The distinction is between the internal fourms and external forum. The internal forum is what takes places within the mind of man (where he believes). The external forums are the actions of man - what he does externally. The *internal forum *is the realms of the individual and God (and a Priest in confession). The State does not regulate the *internal forum * (what man thinks). It only regulate the external forum (what a man does).

Certainly there should be non-coercion in the internal forum; and since belief is something that takes place in the internal forum, it follows that no one should be forced to believe against his will. However, there certainly can be coercion by the State in the external forum, at least by hindering and punishing evil actions that man performs. The State has every right to restrict actions of man, even if such actions are not contrary to the individual’s conscience. For example, my guess is that blowing yourself up in a mall is not contrary to the conscience of a suicide bomber. Nevertheless, the State has a right to forbid such actions. Similarly, in a Catholic country the State can forbid heretics from spreading their errors, since errors work the ruin of the individual and the State. It doesn’t matter if the heretic is sincerely deceived (like the suicide bomber), and the spreading of their errors is in accord with their conscience. The State still has the right to restrict this action, since this is something that takes place in the external forum.

Here’s another quote from Pope Leo XIII:

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei: "If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law…

"The Church, indeed, deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, allow patiently custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. **And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, “Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.” **

yosupman:

The chuch I don’t think is not saying you can never restrict freedom of worship. But see this statement from paragraph 15:

"The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family."

I think this teaching is based upon the current circumstances.

The quote you gave seems to be saying its teaching is based on circumstances. And if that was all DH said, no one would disagree. Not all of DH is objectionable. There are other parts, however, that speak of religious liberty being a natural right based on man’s dignity - a right that continues to exist when man is in error.

**Dignitatis Humanae: **“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. …

"Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed”…

It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious….

In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity

continue

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation.

Those quotes from Dignitatus Humanae are interpreted by just about everyone as saying that religious liberty is a natural right based on man’s dignity, and that, since it is a natural right, it continues to exist even when a man is in error. It is further interpreted, in context, as saying that a man should not be hindered *from acting * [in the external forum] in accord with his conscience… nor should he be hindered from spreading his “doctrines”.

Now, I’ve spent so much time trying to interpret DH in a way that is not contrary to what the Church has always taught, that I interpret it differently that virtually everyone else. But I’m about 100% sure you don’t interpret it the way I do.

In conclusion, all agree that a person should not be forced to convert. This is the traditional teaching of the Church as seen in the quote from Leo XIII. However, saying that one should not be forced to convert is different from saying a person should be allowed to spread their error, or practice false worship, in public. Forcing someone to convert, and forbidding them from acting in the external forum are two different things.

We are getting to the very heart of the religious liberty debate. It is between those who claim that man has a “natural right” based on his “dignity” to offer false worship and spread his errors publicly; and that this pretended “right” should be enshrined in civil law; and those who say man does not have a natural right to spread errors and offer false worship publicly, and that, on the contrary, the State can forbid such actions since they are harmful to the common good.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

We know this… the Church is the ultimate judge as to what is unchangeable as regards to what limit the government can take, and what principles are part of the deposit of faith. The church will never teach man has a “right” to do evil. Freedom is not a license to do evil. Its a license to do good. The church has no authority to change that teaching.

We are disagreeing in this thread, but I did want to compliment you on the above statement. It is exactly right, and something many people are not aware of. God did not give us a free will so that we could choose to do good, or choose to do evil. He gave us a free will so that we could choose to do good freely, and thus be rewarded.

Sin is an abuse of our free will and contrary to the nature of man. This is because man is by nature rational, and sin is contrary to right reason. When a person sins, either through weakness or through error, he is acting, not as a free man, but as a slave.

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei: “In the same way the Church cannot approve of that liberty which begets a contempt of the most sacred laws of God, and casts off the obedience due to lawful authority, for this is not liberty so much as license, and is most correctly styled by St. Augustine the “liberty of self-ruin,” and by the Apostle St. Peter the “cloak of malice.” Indeed, since it is opposed to reason, it is a true slavery, “for whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.” On the other hand, that liberty is truly genuine, and to be sought after, which in regard to the individual does not allow men to be the slaves of error and of passion, the worst of all masters…”

 

[yosupman]

We are getting to the very heart of the religious liberty debate. It is between those who claim that man has a “natural right” based on his “dignity” to offer false worship and spread his errors publicly; and that this pretended “right” should be enshrined in civil law; and those who say man does not have a natural right to spread errors and offer false worship publicly, and that, on the contrary, the State can forbid such actions since they are harmful to the common good.

Excellent post! That is what is really important, is to get to the meat of the issue.

This issue is so similar to the Death Penalty. So many liberals today say that you can’t be a good Catholic and be for the death penalty. All along the church has always held the state has the right to put guilty criminals to death. This is an unchangable principle.

So many liberals today, misconstrue the meaing of DH to be something that is completely not in accord with the Depositum Fide.

See paragraph 9 below:

1. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. **Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. **It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow. Thus further light is cast upon the general principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.

The church clearly teaches that external coercion is not prohibited by the Depositum Fide. But it teaches that religious liberty or freedom is not opposed to the Christian faith.

Let me know what you think.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Excellent post! That is what is really important, is to get to the meat of the issue. …

The church clearly teaches that external coercion is not prohibited by the Depositum Fide. But it teaches that religious liberty or freedom is not opposed to the Christian faith.

Let me know what you think.

Religious liberty, as understood to mean the toleration of an evil, is certainly not opposed to the faith. It would only be opposed to the faith if it was said that man has a right to practice a false religion in public, and that, as a consequence of this “right”, the State was forbidden from suppressing it.

A distinction needs to be make between principle and practice. Due to circumstances, it will sometimes happen that practice will deviate from the principle; but when this happens the principle can never be denied. This brings us to the situation we have today. Since practice has deviated so far from principles; and since we are so used to living in the midst of this “deviation”, it is easy for those living today to end up by denying the principle. In this case, the principle is that no man has the right to violate the first commandment by taking part of false worship, while in practice such violations are permitted. In fact, it is even looked upon as a good thing if a State allows every man to worship as he pleases, and as a great evil if a State was to forbid false forms of worship.

One last point is that the Church has always been in favor of religious liberty, and freedom of conscience, for those who profess the true religion. Since the Catholic Faith is the true religion, Catholics have a moral right to practice their faith and spread their doctrines, regardless of what any government says. Catholics also have the moral right to act in accord with their well formed conscience, even if such actions are contrary to a law of the State. This is true religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

Now, I am going to send this post and then show how it is possible to interpret some of the most controversial parts of Dignitatis Humanae “in light of Tradition”; that is, in line with what the Church has always taught…

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Now, I am going to send this post and then show how it is possible to interpret some of the most controversial parts of Dignitatis Humanae “in light of Tradition”; that is, in line with what the Church has always taught…

Great! I look forward to that.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

OK, here’s Dignitatis Humanea in light of Tradition. I’ll start with some of the parts that are easily reconciled, and then get to the more controversial ones.

DH: “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. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ”.

In context, this is referring to what I called “true religious liberty” in my last post. The first sentence simply says that those who are seeking to live according to the truth should not be hindered from doing so. The second sentence confirms the “moral duty” of both men, and society, to the true religion.

DH: “This Vatican Council declares that 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”.

This is simply saying that men should not be forced to act contrary to their conscience. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, since man should not be forced to act contrary to his conscience, even if it is erroneous. He should not even be forced to do good, if it is contrary to his conscience. But this is different than saying a person in error cannot be prevented from acting in accord with an erroneous conscience in the external forum. The quote from DH doesn’t say the that, so there is no problem. It even adds “within due limits” opening up the door for a person to be forced to act in an extreme situation.

DH: “The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

Again, in context, all this is saying is that it should be enshrined in law that man should not be forced to act contrary to his conscience, within due limits. So far, we are not dealing with public acts of false worship, or the spreading of errors. All DH says is that a person should not be forced to act; it doesn’t say he can’t be prevented from acting. So far so good.

**Dignitatis Humanae: **“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. …

Let me stop here for a minute and make a distinction. This distinction will clear up a lot of confusion in modern thinking. The distinction is between human dignity in the realm of being, and human dignity in the realm of act.

Man’s natural dignity (his dignity in the realm of being) is that he has a rational intellect and free will. This natural dignity of man carries with it certain duties; namely, the obligation to obey civil laws that are just, and all of God’s laws – including both the natural law and any law revealed directly by God (revelation).

The above quote from DH is simply saying that, since man has this natural dignity (reason and free will), he has the corresponding duties – the “moral obligation” to 1.) seek the truth, 2.) adhere to it when it is found, and 3.) to order his whole life to it. It also says that man should not be hindered from living according to the truth, which is correct since man has the right to live according to the truth, and no government can legally prevent him from doing so.

In addition to this natural dignity, man can also perform actions that are dignified, as well as actions that are not. A dignified act is an act in accord with right reason; that is, in accord with God’s law. A dignified act Is the same as a truly “free” act as Leo XIII defined it in some of the earlier quotes I provided.

The distinction between man’s natural dignity on the one hand, and a dignified act on the other, is important because Liberals always confuse the two (just as they confuse natural liberty, which is another name for free will, and moral liberty) by claiming that if a man is prevented from doing what he wants to do (including sin) it is an affront to his “dignity”. The exact opposite is true. Since sin is contrary to man’s dignity, there is nothing wrong with forbidding a man from sinning. To do so is actually to protect man’s dignity.

continue…

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

DH: “Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”

Keep in mind how DH defined “religious liberty” up to this point. It defined it as meaning a person should not be *forced to act *contrary to his conscience, within due limits. For example, you should not force a non-Catholic to convert, or force him to worship the Eucharist, or anything else contrary to his conscience. One again, we are not talking about the person publicly offering false worship, or spreading errors.

DH: “Further light is shed on the subject if one considers that the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal, objective and universal-whereby God orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever more fully the truth that is unchanging. Wherefore every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means.

Once again, there is nothing at all wrong with this. All men to have the right to seek out the truths that God has revealed – which are contained as a single coherent body within the Catholic Church.

DH: “On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience.** Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious**. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.”

Since this is a Catholic document; and since it is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church that a person in error cannot be prevented from offering false worship in public, this paragraph should simply be interpreted as referring to those who profess the true religion, since the Church has always taught that those who profess the true religion should not be prevented from doing so in publicly. If anyone claims that the sentence saying * “nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious”* refers to those who are in error, they are adding something that the paragraph does not say. To support the interpretation that this is referring to those who who profess the true religion, all we have to do is point out that it speaks of them conforming their conscience to the “the divine law”; and since the Divine law includes the divine positive law (revelation) it follows that this applies to those who di conform their consciences to the divine positive law (the deposit of faith); namely, Catholics.

DH: “The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

Once again, since this is a Catholic document, it goes without saying that the “religious communities” refer to Catholic religious communities. Considering that Communist governments of the 20th century hindered the moral right to religious liberty that these communities have from God Himself, it makes sense that the Church would defend this liberty for its religious communities.

I addressed two of the most controversial paragraphs above. If anyone sees a problem with what I wrote, or has another section that seems contrary to what the Church has always taught, please let me know.

 

[NeelyAnn]

There was a 10 year debate on religious liberty that took place in the American Ecclesiastical Review primarily between Fr. Fenton and Fr. Murray. Fr. Murray eventually came under suspicion from Rome for his position, and near the end of the debate was forbidden from teaching it. Fr. Murray actually submitted some of his writings to Rome on this topic and they were rejected by Pius XII. During the debate, Fr. Fenton defended the position of the Church. When you read the debates, Fr. Fenton repeatedly said what he was teaching was simply that which was being taught in all of the theological manuals being used int he seminaries. Fr. Murray never disputed that issue, but personally had his own ideas on the subject. Fr. Fenton was selected as the peritus of Cardinal Ottaviani at Vatican II.

Below are the links to scanned copies of the debates in American Ecclesiastical Review.

The first link is to a speech given by Cardinal Ottaviani on religious liberty. The debate he refers to in this speech is the debate that took place in the American Ecclesiastical Review.

CHURCH AND STATE, Cardinal Ottaviani

The Catholic Church & Freedom of Religion - Fenton

Reply to Fr. Murray (Religious Liberty, Church and State) (Connell)

Toleration and the Church-State Controversy (Fenton)

The Teachings of Ci Riesce (re. Religious Liberty) - Fenton

Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Catholic Polemic and Doctrinal Accuracy (re. Religious Liberty)

Ci Riesce and Cardinal Ottaviani’s Discourse (Di Meglio)

POST TAM DIUTURNAS, Against “religious liberty” (Pius VII)

If anyone wants more, let me know.