Freedom of Religion

[Robster7]

Attn Neil_Anthony and any other Canadians:

I understand that there is some Human Rights Commission which investigates folks accused of offending certain groups in Canada.

For example, I have heard that when certain Christian churches publicly note the scriptures condemning homosexual activity,
they can and have been fined for violating others rights.

Can you or anyone up there explain this?
Have any Christion or other religious denoms registered complaints, and if so, how did it come out?

 

[Dauphin]

Can you or anyone up there explain this?

It’s easy. Religious freedom was simply a tool of those who wished to marginalize the Church.

Their goal is now accomplished, and they’re done with religious liberty. They now seek to gradually phase it out, and impose a secular ideology.

 

[ChristianKnight]

Catholic teaching demands the prevention of the public exercise of false religions and the suppression missionary activity, taking into account any circumstances which might justify tolerance.

No one is suggesting dragging every non-Catholic before a tribunal to be tortured into recanting. That’s just a silly strawman people toss out when they don’t want to have a discussion.

…

It is truth, if your gonna stop people from worshipping publicly, then you must punish them, and the only alternative other than what I said is “prison”

Inquisition, anyone?

 

[Dauphin]

…

It is truth, if your gonna stop people from worshipping publicly, then you must punish them, and the only alternative other than what I said is “prison”

Inquisition, anyone?

No - they would just need to disrupt the activity. The particular punishments which secular authorities would level are entirely up to them.

Inquisition isn’t a dirty word to me, anymore than “police force” or “army” is offensive. The former safeguarded the soul, while the latter only safeguards the body.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Pope Pius IX Votes NO!

Quanta Cura

“From this totally false notion of social government, they fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI the insanity (Encyclical of 13 August, 1832): namely, 'that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty, to be restrained by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press, or by any other means’. But whilst these men make these rash assertions, they do not reflect, or consider, that they preach the liberty of perdition. (St. Augustine, Epistle 105 or 166 ).”

 

[Robster7]

Strangely enough, a couple of non-Jews believed in Jesus and as a result of their faith received healings for others (the Roman soldier, “I am not worthy that you should enter my house,” etc.; the Syro-Phoenician woman to whom Jesus at first responded, “It is not right to give food to the dogs,” etc.) Bible quotes approximate, I admit.

Anyway, Jesus fulfilled their requests despite the fact they were not part of “the one true religion.”

Henceforth I shall avoid involving myself in endless, fruitless discussions.

 

[sancte_joseph]

Personally…i believe in free will. This God given gift should not be taken away by anyone.
BUT this is different from freedom of religion.

Lets say for some reason or another all the goverments of the world forbid the practice of all other religions but Catholic.
So the world wouldn’t have freedom of religion in the sense that people can create churches and/or choose from a variaty of churches.

Okay now I confused myself! LOL

 

[I_Believe]

So, you want to destroy other religions and make Christianity the #1?

What about us protestants, what would you do to us?

Welcome you with open arms of course !

 

[PrayforMallory]

It’s easy. Religious freedom was simply a tool of those who wished to marginalize the Church.

Their goal is now accomplished, and they’re done with religious liberty. They now seek to gradually phase it out, and impose a secular ideology.

Too true. I dread the future because of it.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Dauphin:

Nothing. God is the uncaused cause which we know is necessary from reason.

Why is God immune to causation? Where does God exist that allows him to exist infinitely? Why can a natural force not do this?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Pope Pius IX Votes NO!

Quanta Cura

“From this totally false notion of social government, they fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI the insanity (Encyclical of 13 August, 1832): namely, 'that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty, to be restrained by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press, or by any other means’. But whilst these men make these rash assertions, they do not reflect, or consider, that they preach the liberty of perdition. (St. Augustine, Epistle 105 or 166 ).”

I think I get it now. This is about whether religious liberty is a God-given right that even God will respect, even at the judgement… (i think)

This is one notion of what a right is, but not the only one, and probably not the most common notion today, in our relativistic culture. Today, to say that people have a right to believe in what they want, means simply that it is better that the government not use the force of law to compel people to say that they believe in something. So there isn’t necessarily a contradiction with the Quanta Cura.

Does that make sense?

 

[Unitas]

I think I get it now. This is about whether religious liberty is a God-given right that even God will respect, even at the judgement… (i think)

This is one notion of what a right is, but not the only one, and probably not the most common notion today, in our relativistic culture. Today, to say that people have a right to believe in what they want, means simply that it is better that the government not use the force of law to compel people to say that they believe in something. So there isn’t necessarily a contradiction with the Quanta Cura.

Does that make sense?

It is never right to compel someone to do or say anything. A conversion must be from the heart, forced conversions are invalid. The Church has always recognized that.

The use of force of law in regards to supporting the social kingship of Christ does not require compulsion or coercion upon non-Catholics. In that I feel you are mistaken.

But you are correct in that when talking about absolute rights, we talk about them in the context of a God-given right, not just what the state considers to be a right. In other words, an objective right.

That being said, and I think you’re getting it now…

You see it is understandable why we say we have no right to false worship. Us, knowing the truth, will be held accountable. Those who practice false worship may or may not be held accountable, depending on their culpability. But that is up to God; we can’t read hearts.

But the fact remains that, ignorant or not, we do not have a right to false worship. Especially if we know the truth, that is, the one true faith.

Not to derail the thread, but the same can be said about many modern democratic freedoms: conscience, speech, etc. The same is applied that we do not have a God-given right to relativism (My conscience is the arbiter of right and wrong.), nor a God-given right to blaspheme (I can say whatever I wish whenever I wish with no consequence).

If we look back to the catechism, it says free-will does not give us the right to do or say anything we want. Man’s freedom is limited and fallible.

 

[Genesis315]

Pope Benedict XVI explained this well:

Thus, 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.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

Likewise, I can’t recommend enough the article I linked to on the first page of this thread from the Archbishop of Mainz in the late 19th century. It explains what is meant both by the papal condemnations of the time and the affirmations that would later appear in Vatican II.

 

[Dauphin]

Why is God immune to causation?

Because He’s the necessary first cause.

Where does God exist that allows him to exist infinitely?

This question is unanswerable because it doesn’t make sense. Location is a concept which exists only within creation and can only be established as a matter of reference between created things existing within space. Therefore, to say “where is God?” presupposes that He is part of what He created, which is obviously untrue.

Why can a natural force not do this?

The “natural force” to which you refer is called God.

 

[bullseyenow]

Hello Everyone!My answer is God gave us free will.I know its short and its accurate I guess

 

[cathguy]

My reply is that I disagree with those who reject VII. In its plain text, when interpreted within the context of the Church’s living Tradition, the documents are fine.

The Church’s teaching on the freedom of religion, which is found in the Vatican II documents (plain as day) and in the new Catechism (plain as day), is an organic development of what has come before.

If the Church has Truth (She does) then She has nothing to fear from those who wish to spread a contrary message. We counter their falsehood with Truth.

In fact, from the early days of the Church’s history in the U.S., all the way to 1960s right before the Council, the United States with its freedom of religion proved fertile soil for the Church.

Only after the ambiguities and deformations that came with the Council did the Church’s growth cease and decline commence.

I think it is stretch to argue that the organic development that resulted in the Church’s current expression of the teaching on freedom of religion had anything to do with this decay therefore. How some traditionalists have latched onto this particular development is beyond me.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

This is one notion of what a right is, but not the only one, and probably not the most common notion today, in our relativistic culture. Today, to say that people have a right to believe in what they want, means simply that it is better that the government not use the force of law to compel people to say that they believe in something. So there isn’t necessarily a contradiction with the Quanta Cura.

Does that make sense?

It would make some sense if that’s actually how people use the word “right”. On the contrary, when people lay claim to a “right” or assert that everyone has a “right” to something, they are referring to a kind of principle rather than a dictate of prudence.

For example, the so-called “woman’s right to choose” is often defended by saying that a woman’s body is her own business. Sure, consequentialist arguments are mixed in, but ultimately the concept of a “right” in its modern usage implies a kind of inviolability.
Wikipedia:

Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement.

Note that this alleged “right” is spoken of in terms of political ethics, and what the government “should” do rather than what is expedient for it to do. This applies to many other “rights”.

This observation is not surprising. Consider that when rights are discussed in politics or academia, implicit (if not explicit) reference is made to two core documents of modern political theory: the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. In both, rights are not a matter of political expediency but rather ethical principle.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

So would your Catholic theocracy be sort of like how the muslim nations are? For example, they don’t allow muslims to convert to other religions, and they have restrictions on churches, etc.

Like I said, belief should not be coerced. It follows that lack of belief is a possibility. So, with respect to the first point, no, people would be allowed to convert at will.

As for the second point, ideally that would be the case, but sometimes it may be expedient to allow people to construct places of false worship. What I said was that they have no inherent right to do so.