Religious Liberty

[Reactionary]

It has often worried me that many Catholics of today support a universal right to unlimited Religious Liberty. The Church does not and never has supported a universal right for non-Catholics to preach their religion and practice it publicly. (See the encyclicals of Gregory XVI and Pius IX).

Dignitatis Humanae did not in anyway change this teaching (as teachings cannot be changed, any change to it would be heresy)

If you follow this link all will be explained:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR89103.htm

PS: I will just note, however, that this post is not necessarily an attack on the religious liberty allowed in the modern west. The Church has always recognised that in circumstances where not granting total religious liberty to non-Catholics would cause huge social upheaval and violence. I think we would all agree that the establishment of a Catholic state in, say, the US would not be right.

PPS: I suspect the many Americans here will be very in favor of the total religious liberty afforded in their country. I would just remind any who are tempted to think that that being an American does not make you except from this teaching and that total religious liberty is in no way necessary to have a fully modern democracy. Germany for example is notorious for banning cults such as Scientology and the results have been excellent in preventing these bad people from harming vulnerable people.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I had just started a similar thread earlier, about religious freedom, and most Catholics were of the opinion that religious freedom was a doctrine of the Catholic Church. At least, that’s the impression I got from them.

You’re saying that is incorrect?

That Catholic Churches shouldn’t allow people the freedom to practice, publicize, and preach their religions?

 

[Reactionary]

In short, yes. They are wrong. The Church teaches (and always has taught) that unlimited religious liberty was irresponisble and ment that the state failed in its duty to uphold the Catholic faith.

That said, as I said before, in non-Catholic countries such as the US or UK this rule does not apply as if it was it would cause disproportionate violence and disorder.

All Catholics are, however, required to believe this.

 

[Kaninchen]

That said, as I said before, in non-Catholic countries such as the US or UK this rule does not apply as if it was it would cause disproportionate violence and disorder.

Where, outside, say Poland and South America would this ever be a viable possibility? It would be hardly possible in ‘culturally catholic’ but largely secular countries like Italy, France and Spain.

 

[Reactionary]

That is quite true but that does not undermine the PRINCIPLE. That is the important thing.

 

[Reactionary]

PS: Just as a side note, I find all this insistence that ‘culturally Catholic’ nations are so inferior to, say, the US very irritating and quite untrue. A third of Americans born Catholics have apostatized! Nothing like that has happened anywhere in Europe.

 

[Kaninchen]

PS: Just as a side note, I find all this insistence that ‘culturally Catholic’ nations are so inferior to, say, the US very irritating and quite untrue. A third of Americans born Catholics have apostatized! Nothing like that has happened anywhere in Europe.

Just as a tabbed further side note, I wasn’t suggesting that they are ‘inferior’ (I’m a Jewish Liberal who’s lived in a couple of them).​

 

[Reactionary]

Sorry, nothing personal. I was just airing a general irritation. I was not referring to you though I see now that that is what it seemed like.

 

[Xpat]

It has often worried me that many Catholics of today support a universal right to unlimited Religious Liberty. The Church does not and never has supported a universal right for non-Catholics to preach their religion and practice it publicly. (See the encyclicals of Gregory XVI and Pius IX).

Dignitatis Humanae did not in anyway change this teaching (as teachings cannot be changed, any change to it would be heresy)

If you follow this link all will be explained:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR89103.htm

PS: I will just note, however, that this post is not necessarily an attack on the religious liberty allowed in the modern west. The Church has always recognised that in circumstances where not granting total religious liberty to non-Catholics would cause huge social upheaval and violence. I think we would all agree that the establishment of a Catholic state in, say, the US would not be right.

PPS: I suspect the many Americans here will be very in favor of the total religious liberty afforded in their country. I would just remind any who are tempted to think that that being an American does not make you except from this teaching and that total religious liberty is in no way necessary to have a fully modern democracy. Germany for example is notorious for banning cults such as Scientology and the results have been excellent in preventing these bad people from harming vulnerable people.

Dignitatis Humanae is, I believe, a perfect example of what is so wrong with many of the documents from Vatican II. They can be interpreted in a traditional or a modernist sense. But that’s exactly what the modernist wanted.

 

[Reactionary]

Xpat,

You represent a voice of reason!

 

[ALLFORHIM]

It has often worried me that many Catholics of today support a universal right to unlimited Religious Liberty. The Church does not and never has supported a universal right for non-Catholics to preach their religion and practice it publicly. (See the encyclicals of Gregory XVI and Pius IX).

Dignitatis Humanae did not in anyway change this teaching (as teachings cannot be changed, any change to it would be heresy)

If you follow this link all will be explained:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR89103.htm

PS: I will just note, however, that this post is not necessarily an attack on the religious liberty allowed in the modern west. The Church has always recognised that in circumstances where not granting total religious liberty to non-Catholics would cause huge social upheaval and violence. I think we would all agree that the establishment of a Catholic state in, say, the US would not be right.

PPS: I suspect the many Americans here will be very in favor of the total religious liberty afforded in their country. I would just remind any who are tempted to think that that being an American does not make you except from this teaching and that total religious liberty is in no way necessary to have a fully modern democracy. Germany for example is notorious for banning cults such as Scientology and the results have been excellent in preventing these bad people from harming vulnerable people.

You should take this issue to the Pope. He is your leader and the only one who can do anything about this. My bet is that he doesnt agree with you, at least out in the open.

 

[Reactionary]

That would make him a heretic. I do not think the Pope is a heretic.

 

[Polaris]

So what do you think of Saudi Arabia? They are not socially catholic. They have also outlawed religous meetings except, private ones that this article suggests is acceptable. To allow christians to practice openly would cause severe public disorder and violence in that culture. Should not christianity including catholicism therefore be oppressed for the common good?

 

[Reactionary]

Polaris,

No, the Church does teach that the Catholic Church should always have total liberty. This is because we have the truth and if someone is spreading error it is our duty to stop him by every means possible within realms of the Natural Law and the Common Good.

Soudi Arabia is an Islamic country and we as Catholics have a duty to persuade them to reject their error and convert them to Christianity

 

[dosdog]

So what do you think of Saudi Arabia? ?

After what used to be called Mecca stops glowing and we build The Popes Summer Palace we may even let a few former Muslims at his live

Been Waiting for that Crusader Recruiting Office to Open - Have Sword will Travel!!!

 

[Polaris]

Polaris,

No, the Church does teach that the Catholic Church should always have total liberty. This is because we have the truth and if someone is spreading error it is our duty to stop him by every means possible within realms of the Natural Law and the Common Good.

Soudi Arabia is an Islamic country and we as Catholics have a duty to persuade them to reject their error and convert them to Christianity

Both of those allow for the use of force. (ex: execution of criminal) I do not think this what you mean, but not sure. I think Thomas supported the execution of heretics, do you think a catholic state should do this?

 

[Reactionary]

Well, that really depends on the circumstances. It is not objectively wrong to execute a heretic though I would say that is should be avoided as letting a heretic live give them more of an opportunity to repent. If, however, it is totally necessary then it would be permissible.

 

[Polaris]

Well, that really depends on the circumstances. It is not objectively wrong to execute a heretic though I would say that is should be avoided as letting a heretic live give them more of an opportunity to repent. If, however, it is totally necessary then it would be permissible.

If force is allowed under circumstances. Does a Cathlic country have a right to go into neighboring country and use force to convert them or to oppress the false religion.

IF england was catholic country and ireland was Anglican would they have been right in their actions in the past?

 

[Reactionary]

No because one country cannot violate the sovereignty of another country. Just War Theory in Aquinas will explain all the ins and outs.

Just as a side note on Ireland, I will point out that the King of England was given de Jure right to be ‘Lord of Ireland’ by none other than the Pope himself. That is to say: the King of England had a de jure right to rule Ireland until it was granted independence. The Catholic Church reiterated this several times by excommunicating all members of the IRA several times. Thus the Irish Republicans who rebelled were, objectively, in mortal sin. The ‘Free Staters’ who wanted an independent Ireland but retain the sovereign were good and loyal to both their King and Church. They opposed tyrannical government and this was a good thing but they did not oppose the legitimate ruler which is not allowed in the Christian religion. Why do you think the early Christians never opposed the rule of the Emperor?

 

[Swan]

No because one country cannot violate the sovereignty of another country. Just War Theory in Aquinas will explain all the ins and outs.

Just as a side note on Ireland, I will point out that the King of England was given de Jure right to be ‘Lord of Ireland’ by none other than the Pope himself. That is to say: the King of England had a de jure right to rule Ireland until it was granted independence. The Catholic Church reiterated this several times by excommunicating all members of the IRA several times. Thus the Irish Republicans who rebelled were, objectively, in mortal sin. The ‘Free Staters’ who wanted an independent Ireland but retain the sovereign were good and loyal to both their King and Church. They opposed tyrannical government and this was a good thing but they did not oppose the legitimate ruler which is not allowed in the Christian religion. Why do you think the early Christians never opposed the rule of the Emperor?

When the RC granted the English king the right to rule Ireland the King was Catholic. I don’t think that this “power” was handed down to the Protestant kings. Though I must say I"m for a free, united Ireland and have always felt “foreign” rule was a wrong.