Does the Magisterium contradict itself on Conscience?

[Classicist]

Friends,

From Quanta Cura (1741) to the Syllabus of Errors (1864), freedom of conscience, worship, speech, etc., were rigorously condemned by many Popes.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1776-1782, say that freedom of conscience must be rigorously defended as a principle.

I know this is not “extraordinary” magisterium, but it’s still the ordinary exercise of the teaching authority over many centuries. Why these obvious shifts in position over the years?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The first thing I would like to check is whether these old statements were really referring to the same concepts as the newer statements, even if they used similar or identical words.

 

[po18guy]

Context is everything.

Imagine: Are we the first few people on earth to ever have seen this blatant contradiction, or is there possibly something lacking in our understanding of it?

 

[godisgood77]

This is a very interesting topic. I’m chiming in see the comments…

It seems like the teaching has been “more fully formed” over time.

 

[Classicist]

I only made this topic for the purpose of learning. Don’t expect any attempts to explain, argue, or debate the subject from my side.

This is a very interesting topic. I’m chiming in see the comments…

It seems like the teaching has been “more fully formed” over time.

Just let me say: I don’t see how the two statements “X is an error to be condemned” and “X is a principle to be defended” can be an example of a fuller-formation over time…

 

[godisgood77]

I only made this topic for the purpose of learning. Don’t expect any attempts to explain, argue, or debate the subject from my side.

Just let me say: I don’t see how the two statements “X is an error to be condemned” and “X is a principle to be defended” can be an example of a fuller-formation over time…

Hence the quotes my friend…I don’t quite understand it either.

 

[Robyn_p]

We really need to understand the context. The encyclical was written against certain ideas that today are still condemned by the Church. The freedom of conscience being condemned literally meant freedom to do whatever you want as long as your conscience was ok with it. That position is condemned by the Church today as well.
Same with freedom of religion or worship. This was during the rise of communist ideals which said freedom of religion basically means religion has no place in public life (Hmmmm sounds familiar) That also is condemned today by the Church. From Catholic Answers website

The condemned propositions applied to specific circumstances in Europe at that time. Most of the propositions had been taken almost directly from earlier papal documents. Only by referring to the original context can we make sense of the Syllabus.

Catholic Answers has a lot about this, I would go to their website to go more in depth. But basically, like the quote said, the Syllabus was written in a specific historical, geographical context against specific innovative errors plaguing Europe back then. And those errors are still condemned by the Church today, just under different names than they were two and three hundred years ago.

Hope that made sense

 

[godisgood77]

We really need to understand the context. The encyclical was written against certain ideas that today are still condemned by the Church. The freedom of conscience being condemned literally meant freedom to do whatever you want as long as your conscience was ok with it. That position is condemned by the Church today as well.
Same with freedom of religion or worship. This was during the rise of communist ideals which said freedom of religion basically means religion has no place in public life (Hmmmm sounds familiar) That also is condemned today by the Church. From Catholic Answers website

Catholic Answers has a lot about this, I would go to their website to go more in depth. But basically, like the quote said, the Syllabus was written in a specific historical, geographical context against specific innovative errors plaguing Europe back then. And those errors are still condemned by the Church today, just under different names than they were two and three hundred years ago.

Hope that made sense

It does thanks. I’ll definitely look at Catholic Answers.

It’s interesting that J Ratzinger saw fit to call Lumen Gentium a “counter syllabus” which seems to imply something more than a specific historical and geographic context. Maybe Lumen Gentium provides closure to the “Syllabus” era?

 

[Robyn_p]

I only made this topic for the purpose of learning. Don’t expect any attempts to explain, argue, or debate the subject from my side.

Just let me say: I don’t see how the two statements “X is an error to be condemned” and “X is a principle to be defended” can be an example of a fuller-formation over time…

Youre right, it wouldn’t be. But if “X” back in the eighteenth and nineteenth century meant what would be called “Y” today, and the Church today said “X is good as long as it doesn’t fall into the extremes of Y which are to be condemned”, that’s actually closer to what we have. And there’s no contradiction there.

 

[Robyn_p]

It does thanks. I’ll definitely look at Catholic Answers.

It’s interesting that J Ratzinger saw fit to call Lumen Gentium a “counter syllabus” which seems to imply something more than a specific historical and geographic context. Maybe Lumen Gentium provides closure to the “Syllabus” era?

Maybe! I never knew Cardinal Ratzinger referred to Lumen Gentium as that. That certainly is interesting.

It could be that nowadays, with wider communications available, the Church won’t condemn specific political positions that exist in only one place since if she would do that, the whole world would hear, which would probably cause more confusion than it would solve. Instead nowadays she lays out basic universal principles we must follow.

But I could be way off there

 

[Classicist]

We really need to understand the context. The encyclical was written against certain ideas that today are still condemned by the Church. The freedom of conscience being condemned literally meant freedom to do whatever you want as long as your conscience was ok with it. That position is condemned by the Church today as well.
Same with freedom of religion or worship. This was during the rise of communist ideals which said freedom of religion basically means religion has no place in public life (Hmmmm sounds familiar)

This is a very helpful post, Robyn.

 

[catholictiger]

the Church Develops

the Church may come to a better understanding of conscience lets say and develops its view on it.

Don’t always look at contradicting views from different time periods as a contradiction from the magisterium

 

[Classicist]

the Church Develops

the Church may come to a better understanding of conscience lets say and develops its view on it.

Don’t always look at contradicting views from different time periods as a contradiction from the magisterium

Something can develop so much that it is no longer even related what it was before. How does that line up with the idea of an unchanging “Deposit of Faith”?

 

[dmar198]

Friends,

From Quanta Cura (1741) to the Syllabus of Errors (1864), freedom of conscience, worship, speech, etc., were rigorously condemned by many Popes.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 1776-1782, say that freedom of conscience must be rigorously defended as a principle.

I know this is not “extraordinary” magisterium, but it’s still the ordinary exercise of the teaching authority over many centuries. Why these obvious shifts in position over the years?

The contradiction is a contradiction in appearance only, and I’ll get to that in my next paragraph, but it is important to note exactly why the contradiction appears. In this case it’s obviously because in Quanta Cura the phrase “freedom of conscience” (or a similar one) is rejected and in the Catechism (and in Vatican 2’s Declaration on Religion Freedom) the phrase “freedom of conscience” (or a similar one) is approved.

The reason this is not a contradiction is because Quanta Cura’s condemnation is in regards to a specific interpretation of “freedom of conscience” and condemns only that interpretation. This shows up in the document: Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors both refer the reader to the specific documents in which the false interpretation is espoused, and therefore condemn that specific interpretation.

Another way this shows up is from faithful Catholics from that period, who were ardent defenders of the “true” interpretation of freedom of conscience (i.e. the one in the Catechism and in Vatican 2’s Declaration on Religious Freedom).

One example of a faithful Catholic from that period who defended the true interpretation of Freedom of Conscience was blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman. He wrote a response to the Duke of Norfolk who criticized the Church for condemning “freedom of conscience” in Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors, and in response, Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman showed what interpretation was being condemned and explained why the true interpretation of “freedom of conscience” should be defended. This appears in Sections 6 and 7 of his book “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk”. These sections can be read here.

Other helpful documents are these:

Catholic Answers - The Syllabus, The Controversy, and the Context
catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-syllabus-the-controversy-and-the-context

And this:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html

 

[dmar198]

Re: the Syllabus and Quanta Cura and how they were condemning a false idea of “freedom of conscience,” see my above post. It is also helpful to show that Catholics have always defended the “true” understanding of freedom of conscience, and that can be showed by the writings of the Church Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers.

Catholic History on Religious Freedom:

• 213 A.D. - Tertullian said: “It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion—to which free-will and not force should lead us.” (Ad Scapulam, chapter 2)
• 308 A.D. - Lactantius said: “Religion, being a matter of the will, cannot be forced on anyone. In this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty.” (De Divinis Institutionibus 5, 10)
• 450 A.D. Salvian said that heretics normally become heretics by believing falsely but in good faith, and therefore should be dealt with patiently. (On the Government of God, Book V)
• 598 A.D. - Pope Gregory the Great said: “[The Jews] should in no way suffer through a violation of their rights [by the Church].” “Rather let them enjoy their lawful liberty to observe and to celebrate their festivities, as they have enjoyed this up until now.” (Admonition of Paschasius) “During his pontificate, he put these words into practice, intervening to protect Jews from violence.” (catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4705)
• 827 A.D. - St. Abogard of Lyons said: “Because [the Jews] live among us…we should not be wicked to them nor act contrary to their life, health, or wealth. … We should be cautious or humane towards them, [and this] is not at all obscure but has been clearly expounded.” (The Insolence of the Jews)
• 1045 A.D. - Bishop Wazo of Liege said: “The church should let dissent grow with orthodoxy until the Lord comes to separate and judge.” (Letter to Bishop Roger of Chalons)
• 1233 A.D. - Pope Gregory IX said: “Christians must show towards Jews the same good will which we desire to be shown to Christians in pagan lands.” (Cf. Auvray, “Le régistre de Grégoire IX”, n. 1216)
• 1274 A.D. - St. Thomas Aquinas said that Christians “[do] not indeed [wage war] for the purpose of forcing [non-Christians] to believe.” “Even if [Christian forces] were to conquer [the pagans], and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Question 10, Article 8.)
• 1482 A.D. - During the Spanish Inquisition, Pope Sixtus IV condemned the violence of the Inquisitors, and intervened on behalf of the accused, instituting several humanitarian reforms so that the victims of abuses could find safety from abusive Inquisitors. (Papal Bull Ad Perpetuam Rei Memoriam, reproduced in page 587 of Volume 1 of Henry Charles Lea’s “A History of the Inquisition of Spain.”)
• 1528 A.D. - St. Thomas More wrote that violence should not be used against heretics even by secular authorities, unless the heretics themselves are violent, and then only for that reason. (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)
  I hope that helps to show that the Church has always taught religious freedom in its “true” interpretation. That, of course, has nothing to do with the “false” interpretation of religious freedom condemned by Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors. But regarding that, see my previous post. God bless!

 

[Classicist]

Very excellent posts dmar198. I shall read them several times, and direct others to them.

 

[catholictiger]

Something can develop so much that it is no longer even related what it was before. How does that line up with the idea of an unchanging “Deposit of Faith”?

I’ll make this quick

the deposit of faith is divine revelation

our understanding of divine revelation constantly develops.

I would say that you could compare the devoloping of doctrine to the developing of a persons knowledge of truth. Truth is unchanged, but our understanding of that truth isn’t it constantly develops and changes. You as a child may believe that good guys always win and bad guys always loose but as you get older you come to realize that isn’t the case. Another case may be as a child you be told and know that water is a good thing for you to drink, but you may not understand why. But as you grow older you come to understand why.

The Church is the same way, God gave us revelation the Church for 2000 years has been growing in a deeper understanding of that truth that was reveled to us by Jesus Christ. See for example some of the things St. Thomas said would be considered heretical now but he is considered a doctor of the Church and one of the greatest theologians in the Catholic Church.

The Church develops and isn’t static.

I noticed that this didn’t line up with your question

I would say that yes it can our understanding of truth can be so radically different that it would appear that we contradict ourselves. But really we don’t and sometimes a contradiction isn’t one and rather is a development.

I would also say that sometimes we handle situations differently in the Church which would cause us to change the way we approach a situation.

 

[Robyn_p]

Re: the Syllabus and Quanta Cura and how they were condemning a false idea of “freedom of conscience,” see my above post. It is also helpful to show that Catholics have always defended the “true” understanding of freedom of conscience, and that can be showed by the writings of the Church Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers.

Catholic History on Religious Freedom:

• 213 A.D. - Tertullian said: “It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion—to which free-will and not force should lead us.” (Ad Scapulam, chapter 2)
• 308 A.D. - Lactantius said: “Religion, being a matter of the will, cannot be forced on anyone. In this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty.” (De Divinis Institutionibus 5, 10)
• 450 A.D. Salvian said that heretics normally become heretics by believing falsely but in good faith, and therefore should be dealt with patiently. (On the Government of God, Book V)
• 598 A.D. - Pope Gregory the Great said: “[The Jews] should in no way suffer through a violation of their rights [by the Church].” “Rather let them enjoy their lawful liberty to observe and to celebrate their festivities, as they have enjoyed this up until now.” (Admonition of Paschasius) “During his pontificate, he put these words into practice, intervening to protect Jews from violence.” (catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4705)
• 827 A.D. - St. Abogard of Lyons said: “Because [the Jews] live among us…we should not be wicked to them nor act contrary to their life, health, or wealth. … We should be cautious or humane towards them, [and this] is not at all obscure but has been clearly expounded.” (The Insolence of the Jews)
• 1045 A.D. - Bishop Wazo of Liege said: “The church should let dissent grow with orthodoxy until the Lord comes to separate and judge.” (Letter to Bishop Roger of Chalons)
• 1233 A.D. - Pope Gregory IX said: “Christians must show towards Jews the same good will which we desire to be shown to Christians in pagan lands.” (Cf. Auvray, “Le régistre de Grégoire IX”, n. 1216)
• 1274 A.D. - St. Thomas Aquinas said that Christians “[do] not indeed [wage war] for the purpose of forcing [non-Christians] to believe.” “Even if [Christian forces] were to conquer [the pagans], and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Question 10, Article 8.)
• 1482 A.D. - During the Spanish Inquisition, Pope Sixtus IV condemned the violence of the Inquisitors, and intervened on behalf of the accused, instituting several humanitarian reforms so that the victims of abuses could find safety from abusive Inquisitors. (Papal Bull Ad Perpetuam Rei Memoriam, reproduced in page 587 of Volume 1 of Henry Charles Lea’s “A History of the Inquisition of Spain.”)
• 1528 A.D. - St. Thomas More wrote that violence should not be used against heretics even by secular authorities, unless the heretics themselves are violent, and then only for that reason. (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)
  I hope that helps to show that the Church has always taught religious freedom in its “true” interpretation. That, of course, has nothing to do with the “false” interpretation of religious freedom condemned by Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors. But regarding that, see my previous post. God bless!

dmar, that was awesome. I never knew that about Pope Sixtus IV.

 

[Usagi]

The way I’ve always seen it explained goes like this:

The Church cannot agree that there exists a God-given natural right to hold any and every religious belief, because there are true religious beliefs and false ones, and God is not going to uphold a right to false belief. In that sense, the Church opposes an absolute notion of the rights of conscience.

On the other hand, religion is a matter of willing acceptance and cannot be forced, so no government nor even the Church should compel people to adopt or mimic certain beliefs against their will. Furthermore, it is often best for the well-being of Catholics that governments remain rigorously neutral in religious matters and permit freedom of belief and worship in their citizens. In those senses, the Church supports the notion of freedom of conscience.

Usagi

 

[Nita]

Took me awhile to locate the 2 documents so I could read what they actually say. But thanks to EWTN, finally found them. For any others who are fussy like me and want to see the actual texts:
Quanta Cura: ewtn.com/vlibrary/search2.asp
Syllabus of Errors: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

Since the thread topic connected to these documents has to do with conscience, I think number 15 is the primary statement in question:
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
15. 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.As dmar mentioned, the Quanta/Syllabus is condemning the interpretation of freedom of conscience as it is contained in the referenced document. (Red print above.)

The following article from the Online Catholic Encyclopedia on the syllabus is very helpful Moreover, should a thesis, according to the papal references, be taken from a condemned book, the meaning of the thesis is to be determined according to that which it has in the condemned book. For the thesis has been condemned in this particular meaning and not in any other which might possibly be read into its wording. For instance the **fifteenth thesis, “Everyone is free to adopt and profess that religion which he, guided by the light of reason, holds to be true”, **admits in itself of a right interpretation. For man can and must be led to the knowledge of the true religion through the light of reason.
However, on consulting the Apostolic Letter “Multiplices inter”, dated 10 June, 1851, from which this thesis is taken, it will be found that not every possible meaning is rejected, but only that particular meaning which, in 1848, Vigil, a Peruvian priest, attached to it in his “Defensa”. Influenced by Indifferentism and Rationalism, Vigil maintained that man is to trust to his own human reason only and not to a Divine reason, i.e. to the truthful and omniscient God Who in supernatural revelation vouches for the truth of a religion. In the sense in which Vigil’s book understands the fifteenth thesis, and in this sense alone does the Syllabus understand and condemn the proposition.
newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

I also found the following website helpful. It went thru the various errors condemned in the Syllabus and then gave an explanation. matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html