Can we believe in Religious Freedom?

[JakubMaximilian]

Do you think we are allowed to believe in Religious Freedom as Catholics? I’m sure some of you will bring up the VII document, so what about Pope Leo XIII’s Condemnation in Libertas?“42. From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship,” Doesn’t this condemnation count as being infallible [that is, doesn’t it fulfill the requirements of Vatican I that it be a matter of faith and morals promulgated ex cathedra and in a definitive way (that is, in a manner so as to settle the debate once and for all)] If it is “just” doctrine, how would that relate to the teaching of VII? Is that genuine Magisterium? (I accidentally wrote syllabus of errors and not Libertas in the original, so sorry for that)

 

[catholic03]

Yes, we should believe that man should be able to choose his own religion.

Ideally, everybody should be Catholic. But it is wrong for the state to force people to become Catholic.

 

[Kei]

What do you mean by “religious freedom”?
Words can mean different things depending on the context.

I believe VII was written after communism installed official state atheism, and Christians were greatly prosecuted by the atheistic state. But don’t we all have the right to the one true religion, seeking it as best we can?

That situation is a tad different from Catholic states acting like all religions are equally viable options.

As to the technical aspect of the question as to the syllabus of errors, I dunno.

 

[Jbrady]

Pope Leo XIII’s syllabus of errors?

At least get the basics right. Leo XIII did not write the Syllabus of Errors. Pius IX did.

Ignore those silly sedevacantist blogs written by disgruntled sweaty unemployable middle aged INCELs living in their mom’s basement playing “theologian” or “canon lawyer” on their mom’s old desktop, and rely instead on the actual magisterium of the Church, its bishops, scholars and Pope Francis. Including the thousands who worked on the documents of Vatican II.

Doesn’t the condemnation in the syllabus of errors count as being infallible [that is, doesn’t it fulfill the requirements of Vatican I that it be a matter of faith and morals promulgated ex cathedra and in a definitive way (that is, in a manner so as to settle the debate in definitive way (that is, in a manner so as to settle the debate once and for all)]

Nope. Not even close. Regardless of what the cellar dwellars insist.

 

[Kei]

Continued:
Blessed Pope Pius IX condemned the proposition,
“Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.”
Notice what is referenced. Perhaps looking at the references will help us understand what is said.
Allocution Maxima quidem says,
"In addition, they dare to deny any activity of God in men and in the world. And they rashly assert that human reason, without any reference to God, is the only judge of truth and falsehood, good and evil, and that human reason is a law unto itself, and suffices by its own natural power for the care of the good of persons and peoples. But since they perversely dare to derive all truths of religion from the inborn force of human reason, they assign to man a certain basic right, from which he can think and speak about religion as he likes, and give such honor and worship to God as he finds more agreeable to himself.

But they indeed arrive at the impiety and effrontery to try to attack heaven and remove God Himself from our midst. With singular lack of principle, equal only to their folly, they do not scruple to assert that there is no all wise and provident Divine Being distinct from the things of this world, and that God is identical to nature, and that He is therefore subject to change; and that God is really coming to be in man and in the world; and that all things are really God and of God’s substance; and that God and the world are really one and the same thing, and so too spirit and matter, necessity and freedom, truth and falsehood, good and evil, just and unjust are all really the same."
It goes on, I encourage you to read more to help understand the context. Maxima Quidem – The Josias I dunno too much about the various aspects of the website, but the link to the translation (provided it is accurate) should serve to get an idea of context.

Here we can see that reason is used to mean a sort of inherent reason alone, without any reference to God, and that they whom he is writing against assert a “certain basic right…” By which “he can think and speak about religion as he likes, and give such honor and worship to God as he finds more agreeable to himself.”

 

[Dan_Defender]

When it comes to religious intolerance, western civilization has already been there, done that. Not going back to that. The Lord knows his own.

 

[Kei]

Meanwhile, VII says,
“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.”

Here we see that they mean men should be free from coercion in civil society. Here I highly reccomend reading more of the VII document.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...t-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

 

[EndTimes]

Yes, we should believe that man should be able to choose his own religion.

Ideally, everybody should be Catholic. But it is wrong for the state to force people to become Catholic.

Yes.

We’ve Free Will. and God never Forces…

For, Forcing would be in opposition to Free Will…

 

[Jbrady]

but this is just bizarre. And ew.

Pretty spot on accurate, though. BTW, sedevacantists are not part of some “internal struggle”. They have left the Church because they reject the current and all recent Popes since Pius XII, in the fifties, and have formed their own separatist “churches”, each claiming to be the REAL Catholic Church.

 

[Jbrady]

most people didn’t need the underwear imagery.

Yes, I see what you mean. I edited that part out. Thanks.

 

[Emeraldlady]

"42. From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship,”

How is that contradicted by Vat II?

“These words contain both a fundamental requirement and a warning: the requirement of an honest relationship with regard to truth as a condition for authentic freedom, and the warning to avoid every kind of illusory freedom, every superficial unilateral freedom, every freedom that fails to enter into the whole truth about man and the world.” Redemptor Hominis (1979) John Paul II

Human dignity requires one to act through conscious and free choice, as motivated and prompted personally from within, and not through blind impulse or merely external pressure. People achieve such dignity when they free themselves from all subservience to their feelings, and in a free choice of the good, pursue their own end by effectively and assiduously marshalling the appropriate means." (Gaudium et Spes/Veritas Splendor)

Where are you imagining the source of ‘uncoditional freedom’ post VII?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Religious liberty is different than religious freedom. The latter can lead to indifferentism which is a sin against the First Commandment.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

True trivia tidbit to impress your friends: ++Ottaviani wrote the original schema of VII which was entitled On Religious Tolerance.

Religious tolerance means that a Catholic state will allow non-Catholics to practice their religion in private but the state will assist the Church in propagating the Catholic Faith which is the one true religion. A Catholic state cannot publicly support non-Catholic religions because it would be a public sin against the First Commandment.

Jeff Cavins & Scott Hahn were talking about 3 (1) Kings chapters 11 & 12 in the OT in an old episode of Our Father’s Plan on EWTN, where the kingdom of Israel is divided in two - Israel (the 10 tribes) and Judah (2 tribes). The kingdom of Judah had the Temple and worshipped the Lord while the 10 tribes in the kingdom of Israel fell into idolatry, set up their own temples and eventually became the Samaritans who were hated by the Jews in the time of Our Lord (c.f. John 4).

Pope Leo XIII said that the purpose of human law is to help people conform to the eternal law and help people to get to heaven. So if everyone has their own cult, that’s not helping them to get to heaven. Does that make sense?

 

[Dovekin]

Benedict XVI used religious freedom as the example for a hermeneutic of reform because there are discontinuities and continuities on the issue in our history:

for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

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

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God’s grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all.
Benedict XVI. To the Roman Curia. 22 December 2005

 

[Dan_Defender]

The problem is, there is a difference between theory and practice. In practice, real history shows that the mix of Church and state meant power, corruption, lack of independence, among other things. The Church should not have temporal power but remain spiritually-oriented, which is what we have now. That is my personal opinion of course.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

Wow, scathing. I’m a little bit bitter right now because of the media. So, it was nice to read your comment. But again, today I feel burned. We both need to pray the rosary for people and exhibit more charity. Again I don’t exclude myself. The fact there are some Americans of all ages who don’t have the education, upbringing or perspective to adjust to the internet age should be cause for prayer.

Again, I predict this current recession will be a doozy. The world will go to war over social media. The very people you describe will be putting fuel on the fire.

Man, I’m praying the Rosary right now for both of us.