Yes, I cited this document ( ewtn.com/library/doctrine/rellib.txt ) that explains how to reconcile the Syllabus of Errors with VII teaching but I think he/she already thinks the contradiction is reconciled and the problem exists solely with the Catechism.If, instead of reading this summary paragraph, we go into the actual section which it is a summary of, we get a bit of a clearer picture, thanks to context.
Paragraph 1738
“Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.”
The right to religious freedom is not an absolute right granted by God. The right to religious freedom is a common-sense right recognized by human beings,
An earlier paragraph states that freedom is the condition for judgment of human actions: 1732 “…freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.” Thus, if one fails to use that freedom well, even in the realm of religion, they can be rightly judged for it.
In short, as has often been said, ‘Error has no rights. People do.’
What Pius IX is condemning is not a natural right to religious freedom, but religious indifferentism, the idea that it does not matter what religion one chooses. But the Catechism, while teaching that there is a right to religious freedom, does not say that the choices one makes in this regard are without consequences. This can be seen by looking at the rest of the condemnations which Bl. Pius makes in the same section. “Free” in the proposition as he condemned it, is more likely to mean, freedom in the sense of a free choice in which it does not matter what choice one makes.
Furthermore, merely citing the Syllabus of Errors is one of the most unhelpful things in the world. The reason the citations are there, for each condemned article, is so that people may go back to the original text, and understand the complete context of what the Pope was saying, because the context matters. A lot. Unfortunately, I could only find Maxima Quidem in Italian, which I don’t read. Multiplices inter is a confirmation of the condemnation of Freemasonry, where again, the Pope warns against indifferentism, and exhorts the bishops to struggle against something which is seen as a threat to the Church. Religious freedom doesn’t mean that all ‘religious’ activities are permitted, even as moral freedom does not invalidate the civil law.
Ok so lets look at the Catechism, it saysI understand what everyone is saying, but feel like everyone falled to see my point. Yes, VII can be reconciled with Pius IX, but not the CCC. It says the “right to the EXERCISE of freedom… in religious and moral matters”. It did say a “right to be free” but a right to do the action; this is shown by the next sentence “But the exercise of freedom does not entail the putative right to say or do anything.”
Nor is the first sentence talking about true religious matters (e.g. Protestant belief in Christ), because that doesn’t fit with the second sentence.
The Catechism is wrong
You do realize that if Sedevacantism is right then that means that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church and this cannot happen, right?Well Scott, I am starting to consider sedevacantism actually. Rence, we respect others, but Muslims are wrong, Jews are wrong, ect. Nobody seems to see the force of my arguments here. One section the Catechism contradicting another section
But doesn’t the word “anything” entail what you want to say as well? Isn’t it obvious that what is not allowed or what one does not have the right to are “wrong” things?“But the exercise of freedom does not entail the putative right to say or do anything.”
That could have been worded to say “say or do something wrong”. By saying “anything”, it sounds like it makes the paragraph say that some errors have a right to be exercised, which Pius IX denied
The Pope asked: "Can it be that in determined circumstances, He
[God] does not give to man any mandate, or impose a duty,
finally, that He gives no right to impede and to repress that
which is erroneous or false?...Christ in the parable of the
cockle gave the following admonition: Let it be that the cockle
grow in the field of the world along with the good seed, for the
sake of the harvest."[Cf. Mt. 13:24-30]FOUND IT! So Pope Leo XIII says the following in LibertasAnd the second sentence starts with the word “But” so my interpretation must be right
1747 says, "The right to the exercise of freedom…"And the second sentence starts with the word “But” so my interpretation must be right
People most certainly have a right to conscience, that is, the right to follow the path that they in good conscience believe to be the proper. It doesn’t mean they have a “right” to pursue the wrong path nor the “right” to subscribe to a wrong theology, especially when they are ignorant of certain facts. Just as one is not in a state of mortal sin if they did something that they did not know was a sin, a person who follows their conscience, even though it may not lead directly to the True faith, has a lessened degree of culpability. To that extent, we leave it to God to decide what to do.Oneofthewomen, people do NOT have “the right to choose what path they follow”, but only the right to choose what is right. The right to the “the absence of necessity, coersion or constraint in word or action” is another type of right, a right to protection, not to do something, as I pointed out before
Actually, both statements are complimentary, unlike your desire to condemn error yet embrace Sedevacantism."People most certainly have a right to conscience, that is, the right to follow the path that they in good conscience believe to be the proper.
Pius IX condemned that.
“It doesn’t mean they have a ‘right’ to pursue the wrong path nor the ‘right’ to subscribe to a wrong theology, especially when they are ignorant of certain facts.”
I see you condemn it as well?