Dignitatis Humanæ

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Geremia

Guest
After reading this recent article by the Vaticanista Sandro Magister, I am even more confused about Dignitatis Humanæ, the Vatican II document on religious freedom.

In his Principles of Catholic Theology, then-Card. Ratzinger called Gaudium et Spes, “(in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty [e.g., *Dignitatis Humanæ] and world religions),” “a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus.” He also said in that same book that it “represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” Viz., a concession to Masonry, vehemently condemned by many popes prior to Vatican II, e.g., by Pope Leo XIII in Humanum Genus.

What did then-Card. Ratzinger really mean by this? Does it contradict what he said in his December 2005 “hermeneutic of continuity” speech? Why does Pope Benedict agree with the first phase of the French Revolution, as Sandro Magister’s article says? How is Pope Benedict XVI not supporting dogmatic evolution? How is he not supporting the “New Theology?” I am still confused.

Michael Davies’ article on religious liberty, for free online, did not help clear up the confusion either.

Why does Dignitatis Humanae say: “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.” (D.H. §2)? D.H. directly agrees with, e.g., what Pope Gregory XVI condemned as an “insanity” in Mirari Vos §14 and which Pope Pius IX reiterated and condemned in Quanta Cura, viz., that
liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.
Click to expand...
Also, Pope St. Pius X condemned a separation of Church and State in Vehemeter Nos §3: “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.”

The real question is: “Why does the Church need a French Revolution?,” as Card. Suenens called Vatican II? The French Revolution was Masonic. Why should She conform to the world?[bibledrb]Deuteronomy 18:9[/bibledrb][bibledrb]John 15:18[/bibledrb][bibledrb]2 Corinthians 6:14-18[/bibledrb]Why should She avoid a “ghetto mentality,” as some consider those to have who attend masses in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?

Ironically, Dignitatis Humanæ, with its glaring similarity to the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man, has resulted in less human dignity due to its forcing the Church to retreat out of the political realm, which desperately needs Her moral authority. Had Vatican II not conceded to the Masons with this document, Roe v. Wade might not have occurred in the United States.

Additionally, why do these seemingly contradict each other?
“… all men should be immune from coercion on the part of … every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his convictions…” (Dignitatis Humanæ, §2),
Contrary condemned statement: “… the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining… offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
Click to expand...
“This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right” (Dignitatis Humanæ, §2),
Contrary condemned statement: “Liberty of conscience and of worship … should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society …” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
Click to expand...
 
As most of the parents understands the reality and changes the tone who to talk to his/her child, so did the Church. It does not means changing the principles, only undersyanding the fact that the level of influence changed. People became adults, and eveidence is the fact that for messages like yours do not require previous Nihil Obstat (name removed by moderator)rimatur any more
within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his convictions…
Click to expand...
 
I got it, but I’m not sure if I can explain it in such a small window. Let me try. There are two things happening here. On one level are the rights of the State and on the other level is the identity of the Catholic faith.

The right of the State to defend religious truth by adopting a state religion is not a dogma. The identity of the Catholic faith as the fullness of truth is a dogma.

What Pope Benedict is saying is that there was a need for a correction. Previous papacies had given the Sate the right to defend the faith. However, as we all know, King Henry VIII was made the Defender of the Faith and we know how that story ended. We know that this has been abused by the State in many nations.

When the Council looks back to the early Church to find the answer to this question of the Church and the State, it finds that the early martyrs did not die because they were trying to force Christianity on non-believers. They were accused of this. The truth was that they died because the State denied them the right to live their faith.

The Council does not deny that the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church. Nor does the Council deny that the Church has a place of primacy in society, hence Lumen Gentium. The Council does not propose that all religions teach the same truth.

Pope Benedict is saying that the Council corrected a non-dogmatic idea of the past, that the State has a right to enforce a state religion. That may have been believed by some popes, but it is not a dogma or a moral teaching found in revelation or Tradition. The infallible teaching remains in place. The fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church. In addition, there is another infallible truth. Man has the right to follow his conscience.

I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
On the apparent contradictions between Dignitatis Humanæ and Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors—seeming contradictions that, e.g., the Society of St. Pius X mention—Brian Mullady, O.P., has argued that the the religious freedom condemned in the Syllabus of Errors refers to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the intellect, or freedom respecting the truth; whereas the freedom of religion guaranteed and encouraged by Dignitatis Humanae refers to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the will in morals. In other words, those who see in these different expressions a change in teaching are committing the fallacy of univocity of terms in logic. The terms “freedom” refer to two very different acts of the soul.


  1. *]“What Are Catholics to Think of Vatican II?”
    *]Brian Mullady, O.P. (1994). “Religious Freedom: Homogeneous or Heterogeneous Development?”. The Thomist 58: 93-108.

    If D**ignitatis Humanæ is indeed referring “to religious freedom looked at from the point of view of the action of the will in morals,” this quote from D.H., which Fr. Mullady quotes in his The Thomist article, would actually argue against “healthy pluralism:”
    Dignitatis Humanæ 1.:
    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.
    Click to expand...
    Fr. Mullady argues very well this specific issue of the difference between intellect and will, but there are so many other issues at play in D.H. Why wasn’t the Syllabus mentioned at least once in D.H.? The closest it got was quoting Pope Leo XIII’s Libertas. Why does it seem to support a separation of Church and State when it says that the State “would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious”? This would only make sense if the word “religious” meant “acts that are” of the Catholic religion, no? The ambiguity in the word “religious” is startling: does it refer to true, false, or both true and false religions? Sure, it says “that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church,” but its mention of the exceptional phrase “within due limits,” in reference to the State’s regulation of religious coercion, seems to make it up to the State alone (contrary to that aforementioned), not the Church, to determine which acts are religious or not and whether one is morally obliged to suppress them, although later on it seemingly democratizes the Church’s moral authority and confounds it even with that of other religions:
    Dignitatis Humanæ 6.:
    Therefore the care of the right to religious freedom devolves upon the whole citizenry, upon social groups, upon government, and upon the Church and other religious communities, in virtue of the duty of all toward the common welfare, and in the manner proper to each.
    Click to expand...
    Yet even later it says:
    Dignitatis Humanæ 14.:
    It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself.
    Click to expand...
    So ultimately it is up to the Church alone?

    Additionally, this D.H. quote seems to directly contradict what St. Thomas Aquinas mentions in the corpus of his Summa Theologiæ question “Whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to the faith?” (my emphasis):
    Dignitatis Humanæ 6.:
    It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community. All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community.
    Click to expand...
    In favor at least of religious repression, St. Thomas writes that Catholics can legitimately defend their faith against unbelievers:

    “St. Thomas” said:
    [unbelievers]
    should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions.
    Click to expand...

    The question is: Who exactly can and cannot do the compelling?

    Section 11. of D.H. says “He refused to impose the truth by force on those who spoke against it,” but what about the conversion of Saul? That was pretty forceful. Although later *D.H. *does explain that conversion should not be “by the use of coercion or of devices unworthy of the Gospel, but by the power, above all, of the word of God,” viz., with truth.

    Thanks for the help in understanding D.H. Either it is a very profound document or intrinsically very confusing and self-contradictory.
 
Geremia said:
Also, in the news recently:
Click to expand...
Hi, Geremia!

Interesting thread. My feeling is that these restatements are simply responding to the realities of the the world we live in, and are not theological pronouncements.

Some of the ways they were formulated during Vatican II are blurry, but that’s not surprising, given the departure from traditional expressions of faith, dogma or diplomatic policy.

Previous popes had Catholic rulers to appeal to, whereas Pope Paul VI and subsequent popes have not. There is a distinction to be drawn between defending the Catholicity of a Catholic society through law and asking for liberty in nations that are not Catholic. It was just for Austria to defend her Catholicism, but those states are gone. We live in a world that is either hostile or ambivelent toward the Church, therefore our problem is obtaining liberty, not defending our society.

I disagree strongly with those who think these expressions symbolize a “new theology” under which people have a natural right not to be Catholic. They have perhaps a civil right, or the right exists if the right to be a free Catholic also exists, but it is not the same as having the right to be a Catholic. One would not say someone has the right to kill himself, but rather the civil ability. Even though we have free will, strictly speaking, neither we nor the devils have the “right” to disobey God.

Some traditionalists have focused on the newer calls for Catholic “civil rights,” and extrapolate from their universal language, which is rhetorical, evidence of heresy. I cannot join them, however. The Church must advocate for the rights of Catholics everywhere, and of potential converts, everywhere. Given today’s egalitarian mood, the advocacy must be inclusive. I agree with the critique that seeks to clarify and explain, but not that which condemns.
 
Warrenton said:
Interesting thread. My feeling is that these restatements are simply responding to the realities of the the world we live in, and are not theological pronouncements.

Some of the ways they were formulated during Vatican II are blurry, but that’s not surprising, given the departure from traditional expressions of faith, dogma or diplomatic policy.

Previous popes had Catholic rulers to appeal to, whereas Pope Paul VI and subsequent popes have not. There is a distinction to be drawn between defending the Catholicity of a Catholic society through law and asking for liberty in nations that are not Catholic. It was just for Austria to defend her Catholicism, but those states are gone. We live in a world that is either hostile or ambivelent toward the Church, therefore our problem is obtaining liberty, not defending our society.

I disagree strongly with those who think these expressions symbolize a “new theology” under which people have a natural right not to be Catholic. They have perhaps a civil right, or the right exists if the right to be a free Catholic also exists, but it is not the same as having the right to be a Catholic. One would not say someone has the right to kill himself, but rather the civil ability. Even though we have free will, strictly speaking, neither we nor the devils have the “right” to disobey God.

Some traditionalists have focused on the newer calls for Catholic “civil rights,” and extrapolate from their universal language, which is rhetorical, evidence of heresy. I cannot join them, however. The Church must advocate for the rights of Catholics everywhere, and of potential converts, everywhere. Given today’s egalitarian mood, the advocacy must be inclusive. I agree with the critique that seeks to clarify and explain, but not that which condemns.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the excellent summary of the issues surrounding Dignitatis Humanæ. You summarized all the issues very well.
 
Warrenton said:
Previous popes had Catholic rulers to appeal to, whereas Pope Paul VI and subsequent popes have not.
Click to expand...
And some of that may have actually been caused by Dignitatis Humanæ, though. See especially this article from the excellent Latin Mass Maganize as well as these others, too.
Warrenton said:
Even though we have free will, strictly speaking, neither we nor the devils have the “right” to disobey God.
Click to expand...
Yes, as the article to which I referred above shows, whether one has a human right to propagate error was highly debated during the deliberations on Dignitatis Humanæ. As the author noted about what Pope Leo XIII taught: “man has a natural right only to follow the will of God and obey His commandments.” The author of that article also quotes some cardinals’ objections:
Cardinal Siri of Genoa:
We cannot legitimize what God merely tolerates; we can only tolerate it, and that within the limits of the common good. We cannot therefore accept the proposed schema insofar as it recommends liberty for all without discrimination…. We should therefore consider more carefully the contribution of theological sources to this problem of religious liberty and determine whether or not the contents of this schema can be reconciled with the teaching of Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII. Otherwise, we weaken our own authority and compromise our apostolic effort.
Click to expand...
"Bishop Emilio Tagle Covarrabuias of Valparaiso:
I am very much against this schema. It merely rearranges the previous version, and it contains a number of contradictions…. Many passages are too complacent towards false religions and run the risk of indifferentism and Liberalism. It does not seem possible to grant the same rights to all religions indiscriminately. Only the one true Church has the right to religious liberty, strictly speaking. Other religions can only be tolerated, depending upon the circumstances and persons.
Click to expand...
Cardinal de Arriba y Castro of Tarragona:
This is probably the most delicate problem of the whole Council with respect to the Faith. We must clearly affirm this basic principle: only the Catholic Church has the duty and the right to preach the Gospel. That is why proselytism on the part of non-Catholics among Catholics is illicit and should be prevented by the civil authorities as well as by the Church, as the common good requires…. The Council must be careful not to decree the ruin of Catholicism in those countries where it is in fact the only religion.
Click to expand...
Warrenton said:
Some traditionalists have focused on the newer calls for Catholic “civil rights,” and extrapolate from their universal language, which is rhetorical, evidence of heresy.
Click to expand...
Could you please give some examples? Thanks
 
Geremia said:
Could you please give some examples? Thanks
Click to expand...
Certainly! And thanks so much for the links, I have not read all of them, but particularly enjoyed the critique of Cardinal Dulles’s analysis.

For an example of what I would term an overreaction, please see: mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Bob_Sungenis.html

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the newer statements about religious liberty are ideally phrased in terms of traditional Catholic expression (and I do not believe they are). Rather, I don’t see them challenging traditional theology, or our traditional Catholic identity in the same way as the new mass, COTH, or even altar girls, do.

Thank you for a very interesting thread!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top