religious freedom

[mrld20]

So people please don’t jump down my throat over this… This is a sincere question and I’m sorry If it offends people.

It’s just every time there’s a thread on something like the Society of Pius X or the Jews; it would seem it gets shut down before any dialogue can begin.

I’m just really curious to hear a traditionalist on religious freedom. I mean I do accept that we are the “one holy catholic apostolic church.”

But at the same time I recognize it is our duty as Christians to at least acknowledge other people’s beliefs and accept that we can peacefully co-exist without trying to forcibly convert each other or refute each other’s beliefs.

I personally am friends with many protestants, jews, muslims, and buddhists.

What are everyone’s thoughts on religious freedom and ecumenical outreach?

Again I am not trying to start a fight here. I am really curious and looking for answers. I don’t want to offend or upset anyone here. No one put me up to this to bash traditionalist Catholics.

I am not anti-traditionalist in anyway. I have no problem with the old liturgy or traditions. I’m just trying to learn

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I’m pretty sure I don’t count as a Traditionalist, but when I was reading your post I have to admit I was a bit confused by your idea of “religious freedom.”

But at the same time I recognize it is our duty as Christians to at least acknowledge other people’s beliefs and accept that we can peacefully co-exist without trying to forcibly convert each other or refute each other’s beliefs.

Essentially, I don’t see why attempts at conversion must be viewed as antagonistic. Of course, they can be - as imperfect humans, we have a tendency to mess up occasionally (or a lot), which is part of why some topics tend to get shut down on these forums quickly, as you noticed.

An example: one of my best friends is protestant, and currently in seminary. I remember on one particular Saturday (back in high school) we spent the entire day arguing in an easy going way about various pieces of Christian doctrine while going around various neighborhoods picking up bags of canned goods (part of Scouting for Food) for a local food pantry. This does not have to be a barrier to coexistence.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I don’t think people would really argue against peaceful coexistence. I guess that most of us acknowledge other people’s beliefs and are friends, or at least acquainted with those who practice a different religion. I have non-Christian friends and it is not an issue. I care about my friends and respect their beliefs but I don’t accept their beliefs. I believe this is an important distinction.

The church exists in the world that has not fully accepted the the word of God. We coexist with other religions and belief systems, whether we like it or not. However, the church must never water down its teaching in order to be more acceptable to those groups and so betray God. In this way it does refute other beliefs and it must do so. I see no virtue in false ecumenism and the modern spirit of tolerance that believes in everything and nothing.

 

[NeelyAnn]

I’ll answer your question with quotes from the magisterium, but before doing so I’ll summarize what the Church has always taught.

One members of the true Church possess the inherent right to religious liberty. Since non-Catholic religions are false; and since false religions are a violation of the first commandment, they have no inherent right to exist. Therefore, a Catholic county can (and for many centuries did) forbid false religions and non Catholic sects (Protestants, for example) from practicing their religion publicly. With that, the following are several of many magisterial statements on this subject.

Pope Leo XIII: "To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.

1. But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue is concerned with those things which lead to God as man’s supreme and ultimate good; and therefore religion, which (as St. Thomas says) “performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honor”,(7) rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin. - Libertas. vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

The following are formally condemned proposition from the Syllabus of Pius IX.

1. [It is an error to beleive that] 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.
2. [It is an error to believe that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
3. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. Condemned
4. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856. - Condemned) papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Keep in mind that all of the above propositions are errors. I added “it is error to believe that” to the first two propositions to make them easier to understand.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Here’s one more for now…

Quanta Cura: “For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 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.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.” papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm

There is one more important point to add, however, which is that the Church has never forbade the toleration of false religions when necessary. This was addressed in the first encyclical I quoted.

Libertas: 33. Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. **For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, **she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. … But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability. …

1. But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires.

 

[Rence]

Yeah…you forgot to list that it was an error (according to the Syllabus of Pius IX) to believe it was harmful to BURN Lutherans.

I don’t care what the syllabus says: it is EVIL to burn people just because they don’t believe in Church teachings. That said, I don’t pay much attention to the Syllabus of Pius IX. After all, if one is wrong, there is nothing to compell me to believe the rest aren’t either.

Everyone has the right to choose and follow their own religion. There is nothing special about being Catholic by force. Trying to force someone to be Catholic just makes people hate the Church.

 

[NeelyAnn]

I don’t care what the syllabus says: it is EVIL to burn people just because they don’t believe in Church teachings. That said, I don’t pay much attention to the Syllabus of Pius IX. After all, if one is wrong, there is nothing to compell me to believe the rest aren’t either.

If you reject the syllabus, why would you accept anything the Church teaches? All the teachings of the Church flow from the same authority. If you reject one teaching, you thereby reject the authority itself, and as such have no basis (other than your own opinion) for accepting the other teachings of the magisterium.

And when you bring up burning heretics at the stake you are creating a strawman argument, since this is not addressed in the Syllabus.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

The following are formally condemned proposition from the Syllabus of Pius IX.

1. [It is an error to beleive that] 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.
2. [It is an error to believe that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
3. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. Condemned
4. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. – Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856. - Condemned) papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Keep in mind that all of the above propositions are errors. I added “it is error to believe that” to the first two propositions to make them easier to understand.

Spot on! I couldn’t have said it better myself!

Its also funny that you just posted a quote from Quanta Cura…I was just about to post that

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

Forgive me for double posting, I felt it necessary to respond to this urgently.

Yeah…you forgot to list that it was an error (according to the Syllabus of Pius IX) to believe it was harmful to BURN Lutherans.

It does not say that. Or is that number 81 of the Syllabus? (Answer: No, there is no number 81 in the Syllabus) I think you are confusing these quotes with the quotes I talked about on the “Burning heretics” thread (I took part in two so I’m not sure which it was) But I dertainly didn’t quote anything concerning that.

I don’t care what the syllabus says: it is EVIL to burn people just because they don’t believe in Church teachings. That said, I don’t pay much attention to the Syllabus of Pius IX. After all, if one is wrong, there is nothing to compell me to believe the rest aren’t either.

See my first response, it does not say that. And allow me to quote the Syllabus once more:
Pius IX:

The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights. (Section V, Number 19)

I deny all the errors in the Syllabus as the Church (a perfect society) condemned them.

Everyone has the right to choose and follow their own religion. There is nothing special about being Catholic by force. Trying to force someone to be Catholic just makes people hate the Church.

I’m not forcing anyone to to anything. Doing so would go against Dignitatis Humanae:
"Paul VI:

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. (1965)

This calls us not to coerce another into religion. I was taught that free-will was a gift from God.

If you reject the syllabus, why would you accept anything the Church teaches? All the teachings of the Church flow from the same authority. If you reject one teaching, you thereby reject the authority itself, and as such have no basis (other than your own opinion) for accepting the other teachings of the magisterium.

And when you bring up burning heretics at the stake you are creating a strawman argument, since this is not addressed in the Syllabus.

And again, you hit the nail right on the head.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[passer_by]

If you reject the syllabus, why would you accept anything the Church teaches? All the teachings of the Church flow from the same authority. If you reject one teaching, you thereby reject the authority itself, and as such have no basis (other than your own opinion) for accepting the other teachings of the magisterium.

And when you bring up burning heretics at the stake you are creating a strawman argument, since this is not addressed in the Syllabus.

Hi there,

I agree with all the things you quoted.

But I am not sure in what sense you posted the above. Are you trying to say that other religions are not allowed in the sense that they must be suppressed by the State? Because I think that is not what is said in those quotes.

EDIT: Never mind, I saw your 2nd post from Libertas.

 

[mrld20]

I’m pretty sure it makes sense for everyone to embrace “freedom of religion” this includes Catholics and Lutherans as well…

 

[Flyingg]

People are free to believe in what they want. You are free to worship stones as long as you don’t throw them on me or on others

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I’m pretty sure it makes sense for everyone to embrace “freedom of religion” this includes Catholics and Lutherans as well…

How do you mean?

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Rence]

If you reject the syllabus, why would you accept anything the Church teaches? All the teachings of the Church flow from the same authority. If you reject one teaching, you thereby reject the authority itself, and as such have no basis (other than your own opinion) for accepting the other teachings of the magisterium.

I don’t need to accept the syllabus in order to accept the Creeds and the contents of the CCC, which are also from the Church. And you are not in a position to tell me what I accept and how I have accepted it. You don’t know me in order to do so. Faith is not based on one thing, and faith is not based on one thing for all people. There’s a big world out there, and people come to understanding differently.

And when you bring up burning heretics at the stake you are creating a strawman argument, since this is not addressed in the Syllabus.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Tell me what it is, and how what I said is a strawman.

And you are correct about my mistake. The encouragement of burning Lutherans at the stake was another Pope…but as you said: flow from the same authority Which is why I just stick to the CCC.

Consider the “false” statements in the syllabus, which contradicts the freedom to choose one’s own religion:

1. 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.

Obviously, there is a reason why I stick to the CCC and not the syllabus of “errors”. It would go against my conscience to accept #15.

 

[Rence]

I’m pretty sure it makes sense for everyone to embrace “freedom of religion” this includes Catholics and Lutherans as well…

Of course, I agree: everyone (Catholic, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Lutheran, Baptist, etc) wants the freedom to practice their religion and without oppression. Who wouldn’t?

 

[NeelyAnn]

I wanted to provide a little more information on this subject. What I am going to write below is a brief summary of what Pope Leo XIII wrote in the encyclical Libertas, which I linked to above.

The first consideration is that there are three kinds of freedom, or :liberty". The first, which is not addressed in Libertas, is physical liberty. The second is natural liberty, and the third is moral liberty.

Physical liberty means I have the physical ability to do what I please. A person in jail, for example, does not possess this liberty.

Natural liberty is another name for free will. Free will is possessed only by rational or intellectual creatures. It is the ability to make a moral choice. Since animals (dogs, cats, etc) act only on instinct, they do not possess a truly free will. Free will enables each one of us to make the choice that we believe to be best.

Moral liberty is a liberty within the law. We only have the more liberty, or “moral right”, to do that which God permits; or another way to put it, is we only have the moral liberty to act within the boundaries of God’s law. I have the moral liberty to work where I think best, or to eat what I think is best, or to travel by whatever route I think it best, etc. But we do not have the right to do what God, or a just civil law, forbids. If we do, we violate our moral liberty and fall into sin.

So, whereas natural liberty can be defined as what we are capable of doing (whihc is just about anything), **moral liberty **is what we are allowed to do.

Now, when we say only Catholics have a right to religious liberty, we mean only Catholics have a moral right to practice their religion, since Catholicism alone is true. The Catholic religion alone is the religion established by God. The Jewish religion was true before the coming of the Messiah, and was merely a preparation for that coming. Since the coming of the MEssiah, the Catholic religion is the true religion, since it was established by God Himself and intended for all men.

The encyclical Libertas explains the various forms of liberty in much more detail. It also explains the true reason for law, which is to protect our moral liberty. In other words, the law is supposed to conform the natural and eternal law of God, and serve as a “light” for our mind in order to direct us in our actions, lest we go astray into error.

I can’t recommend Libertas enough. If you want an intellectually stimulating education, print it out, sit down with a highlighter, and start reading. You don’t want to just skim it on the computer. I myself try to read it a few times a year.

 

[Rence]

Forgive me for double posting, I felt it necessary to respond to this urgently.

It does not say that. Or is that number 81 of the Syllabus? (Answer: No, there is no number 81 in the Syllabus) I think you are confusing these quotes with the quotes I talked about on the “Burning heretics” thread (I took part in two so I’m not sure which it was) But I dertainly didn’t quote anything concerning that.

Yep, I remember, it was another Pope that encouraged burning Lutherans, and not the syllabus.

See my first response, it does not say that. And allow me to quote the Syllabus once more:

I deny all the errors in the Syllabus as the Church (a perfect society) condemned them.

I’m not forcing anyone to to anything. Doing so would go against Dignitatis Humanae:

This calls us not to coerce another into religion. I was taught that free-will was a gift from God.

Yeah, that’s my point. Remember #15? According to the syllabus, it is an errror to believe that: 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.

Sooooo, according to the syllabus, every man is NOT free to embrace and profess their religion You can accept it, as it’s your right to do so. I just am unable to do so.

 

[Rence]

I wanted to provide a little more information on this subject. What I am going to write below is a brief summary of what Pope Leo XIII wrote in the encyclical Libertas, which I linked to above.
…

Now, when we say only Catholics have a right to religious liberty, we mean only Catholics have a moral right to practice their religion, since Catholicism alone is true. The Catholic religion alone is the religion established by God.

Ok, so if I’m understanding you correctly (correct me if I am wrong): you believe that ONLY Catholics have the “moral” right to practice their religion, and people of other religions do not have the same right simply because they are not Catholic?

 

[mrld20]

How do you mean?

~ Pius :knight1:

No forcible conversions, no religious hatred, no promotion of religious hatred, mutual acceptance and understanding (by which I mean no beating the **** out of each other like they do in the Middle East or Asia), freedom from religious harassment (meaning Mormon missionaries can’t put their foot in your door when the person their trying to convert says no. Or forcing people to attend a specific religious service or Church), freedom from religious violence (Muslims can’t kill Jews and Christians, Christians can’t blow up abortion clinics kind of stuff).

I know lots of Catholics who would love to see Roman Catholicism established as the national church. The government should not promote one religion over the other.

Freedom to worship and build. This means if the Pope wants to build a Basilica in Wolf Point Montana; he’s free to do so as long as its done legally.

If the 9/11 mosque wants to be built; let it be built… Let people worship where they want and build houses of faith where they want.

That’s all I have for now…

 

[mrld20]

I wanted to provide a little more information on this subject. What I am going to write below is a brief summary of what Pope Leo XIII wrote in the encyclical Libertas, which I linked to above.

The first consideration is that there are three kinds of freedom, or :liberty". The first, which is not addressed in Libertas, is physical liberty. The second is natural liberty, and the third is moral liberty.

Physical liberty means I have the physical ability to do what I please. A person in jail, for example, does not possess this liberty.

Natural liberty is another name for free will. Free will is possessed only by rational or intellectual creatures. It is the ability to make a moral choice. Since animals (dogs, cats, etc) act only on instinct, they do not possess a truly free will. Free will enables each one of us to make the choice that we believe to be best.

Moral liberty is a liberty within the law. We only have the more liberty, or “moral right”, to do that which God permits; or another way to put it, is we only have the moral liberty to act within the boundaries of God’s law. I have the moral liberty to work where I think best, or to eat what I think is best, or to travel by whatever route I think it best, etc. But we do not have the right to do what God, or a just civil law, forbids. If we do, we violate our moral liberty and fall into sin.

So, whereas natural liberty can be defined as what we are capable of doing (whihc is just about anything), **moral liberty **is what we are allowed to do.

Now, when we say only Catholics have a right to religious liberty, we mean only Catholics have a moral right to practice their religion, since Catholicism alone is true. The Catholic religion alone is the religion established by God. The Jewish religion was true before the coming of the Messiah, and was merely a preparation for that coming. Since the coming of the MEssiah, the Catholic religion is the true religion, since it was established by God Himself and intended for all men.

The encyclical Libertas explains the various forms of liberty in much more detail. It also explains the true reason for law, which is to protect our moral liberty. In other words, the law is supposed to conform the natural and eternal law of God, and serve as a “light” for our mind in order to direct us in our actions, lest we go astray into error.

I can’t recommend Libertas enough. If you want an intellectually stimulating education, print it out, sit down with a highlighter, and start reading. You don’t want to just skim it on the computer. I myself try to read it a few times a year.

Are you saying only Catholics should have freedom of religion?! Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s fascism!