Pius X and Modernism

[Andreas_Hofer]

DustinsDad,

You seem to be on the right track, namely, that despite the fact that the content of the faith has remained the same its presentation has in recent times often led to confusion because of wording open to abuse or actions widely open to misinterpretation. We’re seeing the phenomenon on this very thread, where non-contradictory statements are held up as irreconcilable because they speak in different ways and emphasize different aspects.

Now, the NYTimes piece didn’t seem all that well-written to me, more of a self-congratulation than anything else, written by a “modernist” who is pretty sure his side eventually won the war, smearing the tactic of Pascendi while overlooking the fact that those things it condemned are indisputably erroneous. “Oh, thank goodness we enlightened literati prevailed over the bad old Church that supported Fascism!” Puh-lease.

There is room out there for a healthy debate about the prudence of various approaches to the presentation of the faith in the modern world; unfortunately, this article doesn’t contribute to that.

 

[stmaria]

Why was the Oath abolished by Pope Paul VI in 1967? Was it harmful in some way to priests? Would it give some priests doubt about all of the reforms of Vatican II?

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day… , I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

 

[DustinsDad]

It’s says that “it teaches” thus. Not that it is correct. It’s showing that countering the restlessness of the human heart is to be commended, for that is truth.

With all due respect, here is one of the difficulties of the document manifesting itself. The document does not say what you claim. It merely leaves this part hanging in the air…in fact, it lends itself very strongly to the interpretation that Buddhism can in some ways be successful in men “aquiring the state of perfect liberation”.

Now you seem to know this is nonsense, and I know this is nonsense - but the document doesn’t say this is nonsense. It doesn’t say that these efforts are futile and worthless - which they are. It doesn’t even say that the “effort” is noble though futile and worthless. It just says that these religions are held with sincere reverence by the Church because they “often” reflect a ray of truth:…She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. (Nostra Aetate*, cf.2, 2)*Notice this doesn’t say we only respect the rays of truth, it says we respect the entire belief systems because they “often” reflect a ray of truth. That is a departure from the tradition of the Church. And it does stand in conflict with Pascendi.

The follow up to this sentence sort of saves it, but is also ambiguous…Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(Nostra Aetate*, cf.2, 2)*Now we can look at this and say that the Church still believes that she has the “fullnes” of truth - but also that these other religions are true, just not as fully true. In some sense this can be accurate - but the fact remains that not fully true is about as useful as totally false in terms of being able to save. They can’t!!! The document doesn’t say this. And therein lies the problem.

Further, the last paragraph from this section, which sort of wraps it all up and gives the direction and resolution of the Church regarding what was just said - mentions absolutely nothing about evangilizing or converting souls to the One True Church - this Church wherein lies the fullness of truth and the only Church instituted by Christ with His saving power. See:
The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men. (Nostra Aetate, 2, 3)

This is the part that sort of just blows me away - more by what it doesn’t say than by what it says. I mean - that’s it??? Whatever happened to:Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: …". Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Unitas]

With all due respect, here is one of the difficulties of the document manifesting itself. The document does not say what you what you claim. It merely leaves it this part out…in fact, it lends itself very strongly to the interpretation that Buddhism can in some ways be successful in men “aquiring the state of perfect liberation”.

Now you seem to know this is nonsense, and I know this is nonsense - but the document doesn’t say this is nonsense.

That is why people need to stop interpretting these documents in a vacuum. There is a context to read them in. When read in that context, there is no problem. Some will take it out of context, as we’ve already seen on this thread. But they do so with an agenda that the Church in no way supports.

I find it amazing that people have a problem when a document doesn’t say something (or everything) when it has been said several times previously. These aren’t stand-alone documents. They won’t have every last little nuance of Catholic belief contained in every one. They must be read in the context of the Church; in the context of previous documents. When that is done there is no contradiction.

To interpret these documets without any previous context is the same error as interpretting scripture without the context of Sacred Tradition.

 

[Unitas]

*Nostra aetate *praises pagan religions. Read the words that were chosen by its authors. “Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery…profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust”
They do not believe in the Christian God! To say they can have a “flight to God” is a lie. . Hindus worship many animals as gods. Cows are the most sacred, but they also worship monkeys, snakes and other animals. Hindus believe in the following divinities: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer
“Upon the Muslims, too, the church looks with esteem” Islam is a false religion yet *Nostra Aetate *uses the word “esteem”. One would assume the authors of *Nostra Aetae *abhors such religions yet by praising them they act as if they approve of them.
Pope Pius X directly address this idea of praising pagan religions.
Pascendi 14.2
…But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.

Pascendi 14.2
How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate."

Here is what Nostra Aetate should have said in regards to the pagan religion of Hinduism.
Pope Leo XIII AD Extremas #1
“ Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundred of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion…many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstitution”

If you can show us all where the Church officially accepts and teaches the modernist heresy of indifferentialism, I’ll eat my hat.

You won’t because you can’t.

 

[DustinsDad]

That is why people need to stop interpretting these documents in a vacuum. There is a context to read them in. When read in that context, there is no problem.

I think there’s still a problem - the extreme difficulty in making the documents square with tradition. It can be done, but it’s not easy and you have to force 'em to fit sometimes. The other problem is the lack of the traditional light with which to read them in - folks just don’t hear that sort of stuff any more. Not from the pulpit and not a whole heck of a lot from mainstream “conservative” catholic outlets. Sort of a deafening sound of silence.

Further, you kind of gloss over the “lacking” parts of the document in question. But I’d say writing a document on the "Relation Of The Church To Non-Christian Religions" without mentioning the Church’s primary goal and command of Our Lord to convert them to Him and His Church is akin to writing a document on the Eucharist without mentioning the Real Presence of Christ. Mind boggling.

Some will take it out of context, as we’ve already seen on this thread. But they do so with an agenda that the Church in no way supports…

With all due respect, those people taking the, eh, “untraditional” interpretation aren’t just lay folks and lay liberals. They are priests, bishops, cardinals - and we could even say the late Holy Father by many of his actions reinforced these erroneous beliefs. Further, merely reading the documents in light of tradition properly brings scorn from so many in the Church - leaders and lay alike. You start asking questions and immediately your fidelity to Christ’s Church is called into question. It’s amazing. I’m sure alot of folks experienced this when discovering the traditional teachings of the Church, the TLM, or what have you. It happens.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

If you can show us all where the Church officially accepts and teaches the modernist heresy of indifferentialism, I’ll eat my hat.

You won’t because you can’t.

Heh - you won’t find it “officially”. But will you eat your hat if I show you where the leaders of the Church acted like they accepted the modernist heresy of inidifferentism, and therefore sort of taught it by example (some even using words)?

See: Fatima to Become Interfaith Shrine?

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[stmaria]

If you can show us all where the Church officially accepts and teaches the modernist heresy of indifferentialism, I’ll eat my hat.

You won’t because you can’t.

It does exactly that in* Nostrae Aetate*. The Church accepts these false religions by praising them and attaching Christian phrases to them such as " the divine mystery" and “ a flight to God”, “ a ray of that Truth [capital T} which enlightens all men” and “ She regards with sincere reverence”, “ spiritual values found in these men’ and the Church looks with “esteem” upon Moslems.* Pascendi *is prophetic in the way that it addresses the statements made in Nostrae Aetate.

Pascendi… But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them.”
Here you could say the text abhors the errors of Hinduism stating that Christ is the way
Nostrate Aetate: . “Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself”

Yet here the text acts as if the Church fully approves of them just as Pope Pius X said in Pascendi that the modernist theologians would.
Nostrate Aetate:” The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”
And more praise:’ The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.”

What “spiritual” good things are in a false religion? What” ray of that Truth which enlightens all men” can be found in a religion that is not of God but of the devil?

If this doesn’t lead one to believe that it makes no difference to which religion ones belongs, then I’ll eat my Easter hat.

 

[mtr01]

With all due respect, those people taking the, eh, “untraditional” interpretation aren’t just lay folks and lay liberals. They are priests, bishops, cardinals - and we could even say the late Holy Father by many of his actions reinforced these erroneous beliefs. Further, merely reading the documents in light of tradition properly brings scorn from so many in the Church - leaders and lay alike. You start asking questions and immediately your fidelity to Christ’s Church is called into question. It’s amazing. I’m sure alot of folks experienced this when discovering the traditional teachings of the Church, the TLM, or what have you. It happens.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Your statement brings to mind, for example, Yves Congar, who was disciplined by Pius XII - but then later made a Cardinal.

 

[DustinsDad]

What “spiritual” good things are in a false religion? What” ray of that Truth which enlightens all men” can be found in a religion that is not of God but of the devil?.

I was going to say this earlier, but the character limit prevented me. But it relates to your question here as well as Unitas’ earlier statment:

What is holy in a pagan religion is whatever truth they contain that was revealed first to His Church.

Towhich I will respond to both by saying that a pagan religion contains nothing of Revelation. The only things that might be true in them are those aspects of Natural Law (written into all men’s hearts) which have not been completely distorted or abandoned.

However, non-Christians responding to Natural Law by God’s grace can only benifit from this response if they are in a state of invincible ignorance, etc.

Thing is - since the document calls for the Church to “collaborate” with these folks, there response to Natural Law seems to be futile at least objectively since it will be accompanied by their remaining outside the visible bonds of Christ’s Church who they now know exists. Now Christ will judge the heart and know where invincible ignorance meets willful rejection. But why keep our mouths shut hoping to “get someone in on a loophole”? Dangerous game we’d be playing there!

Therefore, if our collaboration isn’t accompanied by a call to conversion - we, the members of Christ’s Church - will be held to account. Me, you, the pope, the bishops, the priests…all of us individually. Ah, if only the document actually said this!!!

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[Unitas]

It does exactly that in* Nostrae Aetate*. The Church accepts these false religions by praising them and attaching Christian phrases to them such as " the divine mystery" and “ a flight to God”, “ a ray of that Truth [capital T} which enlightens all men” and “ She regards with sincere reverence”, “ spiritual values found in these men’ and the Church looks with “esteem” upon Moslems.* Pascendi *is prophetic in the way that it addresses the statements made in Nostrae Aetate.

Pascendi… But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them.”
Here you could say the text abhors the errors of Hinduism stating that Christ is the way
Nostrate Aetate: . “Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself”

Yet here the text acts as if the Church fully approves of them just as Pope Pius X said in Pascendi that the modernist theologians would.
Nostrate Aetate:” The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”
And more praise:’ The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.”

What “spiritual” good things are in a false religion? What” ray of that Truth which enlightens all men” can be found in a religion that is not of God but of the devil?

If this doesn’t lead one to believe that it makes no difference to which religion ones belongs, then I’ll eat my Easter hat.

Funny, I read nowhere in any of these documents that says it doesn’t matter what religion you belong to. In fact, I read everywhere that It’s best to be Catholic where one finds the fullness and completeness of Truth, and condemns the heresy of indifferentialism.

Your out-of-context misinterpretation to support your own agenda is just as bad the liberals’.

You want any ketchup or mayo with that hat?

 

[Unitas]

Heh - you won’t find it “officially”. But will you eat your hat if I show you where the leaders of the Church acted like they accepted the modernist heresy of inidifferentism, and therefore sort of taught it by example (some even using words)?

See: Fatima to Become Interfaith Shrine?

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

People do bad things. I asked where the Church officially holds this stance and so far no evidence has been provided. That leads me to believe the Church holds no such view. Now if some person within the Church holds this view there is ample evidence that such a view is contrary to that of the Church. Just becasue a dissident calls himself Catholic doesn’t mean Catholicism agrees with him.

 

[DustinsDad]

…If this doesn’t lead one to believe that it makes no difference to which religion ones belongs, then I’ll eat my Easter hat.

I think Unitas is looking for something along the lines of “We hereby proclaim the modernist heresy to be no longer a heresy and we hereby proclaim religious indifferentism is ok from now on”. And of course we ain’t gonna see that.

But I agree with you that the document can lead one to believe the errors of modernism and religious indiffernetism. Doesn’t mean it formally teaches it though. But boy it’s close.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…Now if some person within the Church holds this view there is ample evidence that such a view is contrary to that of the Church. Just becasue a dissident calls himself Catholic doesn’t mean Catholicism agrees with him.

Troubling thing is, we’re not talking about one here and one there, one dissident theologin here, one renegade bishop there…we’re talking about a large portion of them - perhaps the majority. And they’re not for the most part being disciplined - alot of times they’re being promoted!

Sort of like we’re re-living the time of St. Athanasius - just a differnt sort of heresy.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…In fact, I read everywhere that It’s best to be Catholic where one finds the fullness and completeness of Truth,

The “good, better, best” approach to evangilization is a new phenomena. But since only one leads to eternal life, it seems “good, better, best” is misleading.

…and condemns the heresy of indifferentialism.

Where exactly does Nostra Aetate explicitly condemn the heresy of inidifferentialism? I’m missing it.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[Unitas]

The “good, better, best” approach to evangilization is a new phenomena. But since only one leads to eternal life, it seems “good, better, best” is misleading.

You, nor anyone else, knows exactly who is saved and who is not. But if a non-card-carrying Catholic is saved, it is because of Christ’s death on the cross and the Truth revealed to mankind through His Catholic Church.

Where exactly does Nostra Aetate explicitly condemn the heresy of inidifferentialism? I’m missing it.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

What is missing from Nostra Aetate is the acceptance of indifferentialsm as true. The heresy of indifferentialism in condmned in Dominus Iesus which I quoted earlier. Why you’d want to interpret them separately when both came from the same source is beyond me.

 

[DustinsDad]

You, nor anyone else, knows exactly who is saved and who is not.

Individually, I don’t - Christ is the judge of each individual human heart.

Objectively, I do, because Christ’s Church has already told us explicitlly over and over and over again that there is no salvation outside the Church. Since we are speaking here of religions and not of individuals, the “good, better, best” is misleading because it presents the notion that all religions are more or lest praiseworthy and good - but since the aim of True Religion is Salvation, and only one can give this, then only one is good - the rest lead to eternal death. And that ain’t good by a long shot.

But if a non-card-carrying Catholic is saved, it is because of Christ’s death on the cross and the Truth revealed to mankind through His Catholic Church.

And because he did not reject them.

What is missing from Nostra Aetate is the acceptance of indifferentialsm as true. The heresy of indifferentialism in condmned in Dominus Iesus which I quoted earlier. Why you’d want to interpret them separately when both came from the same source is beyond me.

I’m sorry, I thought you said the heresy of indifferentism was actually condemned *IN *Nostra Aetate. My bad.

Could it not be said that someone who is religously indifferent could read Nostra Aetate and feel pretty darn secure in his religous indifferent state? In fact, couldn’t he come away actually confirmed in this state of religous indifferentism?

DustinsDad

 

[Unitas]

Could it not be said that someone who is religously indifferent could read Nostra Aetate and feel pretty darn secure in his religous indifferent state? In fact, couldn’t he come away actually confirmed in this state of religous indifferentism?

DustinsDad

He may or he may not. It depends upon the strength of his preconceptions as well as the context (if any) in which it was read. The Church provides much context that would be error to ignore. It also has to do with if he was honestly allowing God to lead him to the Truth or merely looking to validate his preconceptions.

 

[stmaria]

Funny, I read nowhere in any of these documents that says it doesn’t matter what religion you belong to. In fact,

B]I read everywhere that It’s best to be Catholic where one finds the fullness and completeness of Truth

Your out-of-context misinterpretation to support your own agenda is just as bad the liberals’.

You want any ketchup or mayo with that hat?

You are quoting almost word for word the way in which a modernist writes.
Pascendi 14.2
. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity.

*Nostra Aetate *contains ambugity because that is how modernists think.
*Pascendi *18. This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. **But this is done deliberately and advisedly, **and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist

 

[stmaria]

Unitas, If I wrote a paper on terrorism and I stated that I had “great respect “ and rejected nothing that was “true and holy” in Jihad. I had “great esteem” for the followers of Osama Bin Laden and that in Jihad men, “ seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust”, I would probably be arrested.
By my failure to condemn Jihad I would imply that I see nothing wrong with it. I wuold be indifferent.This is the error of Nostrae Aetate. It fails to condemn pagan religions and by not pointing out the errors and it gives the believers of those religions no reason to convert.