Religous Freedom Legit or Not?

[pseudoanselm]

Personally, I fully accept the documents of Vatican II on religous freedom, which is based upon liberty of conscience, which in turn recognizes that the response of faith must be free. To me, it seems to be a law of nature.

However, one can’t help but recognize at least an apparent contradiction between Popes prior to the 20th century and Popes leading up to and after Vatican II on this question.

It seems that Gregory XVI and Pius IX completely reject the ideas of liberty of conscience and religious freedom, while latter popes embrace it. On a side note, I think the value of religious freedom is clarifed by the absolute violent intolerance of mainstream Islam, for whom religious freedom is a contradiction in terms.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

 

[Yours_Truly]

Personally, I fully accept the documents of Vatican II on religous freedom, which is based upon liberty of conscience, which in turn recognizes that the response of faith must be free. To me, it seems to be a law of nature.

If a law of nature permits violations of the first commandment (which forbids false worship), does the law of nature also permit violations of the 5th commandment? If not, why?

My second question is this: Considering that God created human nature, do you think God’s law violate the law of nature?

When the Church has condemned religious liberty, it did not mean that others should be forced to convert to the true religion; it just meant that no one has the right to violate the first commandment by practicing a false religion.

 

[bilop]

When the Church has condemned religious liberty, it did not mean that others should be forced to convert to the true religion; it just meant that no one has the right to violate the first commandment by practicing a false religion.

I think this is the crucial point. Not coercing people to be Catholic is a prudential judgement, it’ s a bad idea b/c it doesn’t work, and can undermine true belief. But, those people have no natural moral right to their false religion, and the correct prudential judgement could be different at a different time.

For example, if radical Islam was really gaining hold in the U.S. (to the point where it threatened to take over the country and destroy the liberty of non-Muslims) I could see it becoming necessary to restrict the practice and prostelytizing of Islam.

God Bless

 

[Cluny]

God created mortals to be free.

But only through Jesus can we hope to escape abuse of our freedom, as well as consequences thereof.

 

[pseudoanselm]

<If a law of nature permits violations of the first commandment (which forbids false worship), does the law of nature also permit violations of the 5th commandment? If not, why>

The difference is that reason alone can corroborate the 5th commandment, which deals with basic justice in the human political community.

The 1st Commandment, in which God reveals himself specifically to mankind in His covenant with Israel, is not within the strict purview of reason beyond what is called natural theology.

So, it is reasonable that more leniency in the constitutions of states be granted for matters pertaining to religious belief and worship.

This isn’t about indifferentism. Rather it’s about the limits of human reason which can’t be compensated for by politically forcing divine revelation.

 

[pseudoanselm]

<I think this is the crucial point. Not coercing people to be Catholic is a prudential judgement, it’ s a bad idea b/c it doesn’t work, and can undermine true belief.>

Yes, coercion is a bad idea and doesn’t work b/c it violates the very way in which God created us. Coerced faith or pressure induced faith is NOT faith.

<But, those people have no natural moral right to their false religion, and the correct prudential judgement could be different at a different time.>

I agree that people have no natural moral right to believe falsehood in the sense that belief in something as true necessarily makes it true.

Vatican II did not bless religious relativism. It blessed religous freedom, which is something totally different than relativism.

<For example, if radical Islam was really gaining hold in the U.S. (to the point where it threatened to take over the country and destroy the liberty of non-Muslims) I could see it becoming necessary to restrict the practice and prostelytizing of Islam.>

I agree, but we’d restrict Muslims only because they don’t accept religious freedom. They want to make everyone Muslim by force. Last time I checked, astrologers (as heretical and primitive as they are) don’t want to kill Catholics for believing God.

So, we allow their freedom to practice their falsehood in exchange for our right to try and persuade them to abandon it.

 

[CapIV]

When the Church has condemned religious liberty, it did not mean that others should be forced to convert to the true religion; it just meant that no one has the right to violate the first commandment by practicing a false religion.

This statement is the closest to truth. Most people don’t understand what the Vatican means by 'religious freedom". No one has a “right” to violate commandments. These doesn’t mean that they can’t do it, but it doesn’t mean they have a right to. Nor does it mean forced conversion.

Similarly, no one has a “right” to an abortion. But a women may procure one if she so chooses. This doesn’t make it a right. Although this is a little different because abortion really ought to be illegal.

By the way, forcing people to be good or Catholic was explicitly condemned by Aquinas in his section on the nature of human law. Forcing someone to be baptized, go to Mass, and receive Eucharist doesn’t make them Catholic if they don’t really believe it.

 

[Yours_Truly]

<If a law of nature permits violations of the first commandment (which forbids false worship), does the law of nature also permit violations of the 5th commandment? If not, why>

The difference is that reason alone can corroborate the 5th commandment, which deals with basic justice in the human political community.

The 1st Commandment, in which God reveals himself specifically to mankind in His covenant with Israel, is not within the strict purview of reason beyond what is called natural theology.

So, it is reasonable that more leniency in the constitutions of states be granted for matters pertaining to religious belief and worship.

This isn’t about indifferentism. Rather it’s about the limits of human reason which can’t be compensated for by politically forcing divine revelation.

Unless I misunderstood you, your exact points were addressed and refuted in the encyclical Libertas of Pope Leo XIII.

If I understood you correctly, what you are basically saying is this: Civil society should be governed by the principles of the natural law only (that which man knows by the light of his reason), and not also by the precepts of the Divine positive law (revelation).

Pope Leo XIII addresses that in the above metioned encyclical; and that encyclical, when understood thoroughly, is the absolute antidiote for all shades of Liberalism. It describes what true liberty is, and exposes the false liberties of the modern age with such clarity and precision that one can spot these errors from a mile away.

I will quote a few sections here. Hopefully you will print it out and read the whole thing. If the parts I will quote he gives the various degrees of Liberals.

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: "What naturalists or rationalists aim at in philosophy, that the supporters of liberalism, carrying out the principles laid down by naturalism, are attempting in the domain of morality and politics. The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority…

This is what we find, for example, in America, where “the will of the people” determines civil law independent of God’s law. So, for example, as the conservative Rush Limbaugh said, “if the American people voted in favor of abortion, I would support it; but they didn’t. It was decided by a court”.

This is the mind-set of America. If the “will of the people” decides this or that, so be it, without any reference to the law of God.

Now, I don’t think this is what you are advocating, so let’s continue to the next shade of Liberalism…

Pope Leo XIII … Moreover, besides this, a doctrine of such character is most hurtful both to individuals and to the State. For, once ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference. …

continue…

 

[Yours_Truly]

continuation

Leo XIII: There are, indeed, some adherents of liberalism who do not subscribe to these opinions, which we have seen to be fearful in their enormity, openly opposed to the truth, and the cause of most terrible evils. Indeed, very many amongst them, compelled by the force of truth, do not hesitate to admit that such liberty is vicious, nay, is simple license, whenever intemperate in its claims, to the neglect of truth and justice;** and therefore they would have liberty ruled and directed by right reason, and consequently subject to the natural law and to the divine eternal law. But here they think they may stop, holding that man as a free being is bound by no law of God except such as He makes known to us through our natural reason**…

Now, unless I misunderstood you, this is precisely what you are advocating - that man should be ruled by the natural law only, and not also the precepts of Divine Positive law (revelation). Here’s the Pope’s response:

Leo XIII ** In this they are plainly inconsistent**. For if – as they must admit, and no one can rightly deny – the will of the Divine Law-giver is to be obeyed, because every man is under the power of God, and tends toward Him as his end, it follows that no one can assign limits to His legislative authority without failing in the obedience which is due. Indeed, if the human mind be so presumptuous as to define the nature and extent of God’s rights and its own duties, reverence for the divine law will be apparent rather than real, and arbitrary judgment will prevail over the authority and providence of God. Man must, therefore, take his standard of a loyal and religious life from the eternal law; and from all and every one of those laws which God, in His infinite wisdom and power, has been pleased to enact, and to make known to us by such clear and unmistakable signs as to leave no room for doubt. And the more so because laws of this kind have the same origin, the same author, as the eternal law, are absolutely in accordance with right reason, and perfect the natural law. These laws it is that embody the government of God, who graciously guides and directs the intellect and the will of man lest these fall into error. Let, then, that continue to remain in a holy and inviolable union which neither can nor should be separated; and in all things – for this is the dictate of right reason itself – let God be dutifully and obediently served.

Now, maybe I misunderstood you and you do believe that each man is personally bound to follow all of God’s laws - both the natural law and the positive laws. Maybe you are just saying that the State should limit the framing of its laws according to the laws of nature only and not also according to the postive law as revealed through the Church.

If that is what you are advocating, here’s the Pope’s reply:

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: ** There are others, somewhat more moderate [in their Liberalism] though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State,** for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. … This harmony [between the Church and State] has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life.

From this we can see that those who advocate that the State be separated from the Church are in error. Just as man has a duty to obey God, so too does the State; and since God’s laws are made known through the Church, the State should be subject to the [True] Church.

Now, obviously this is the ideal, and not possible on all countries, such as America. What we are required to affirm is that this ideal is the ideal, and what we are not allowed to believe is that this ideal is somehow a violation of a pretended right of man, which is what the Liberals claim.

This encyclical is not only a must read, but a must learn. It will shines the light of truth on all the fuzzy ambiguities of liberalism, and expose their pretended “liberty” for the license that it actually is:

Leo XIII: Libertas: "But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.

 

[pseudoanselm]

<Now, unless I misunderstood you, this is precisely what you are advocating - that man should be ruled by the natural law only, and not also the precepts of Divine Positive law (revelation). Here’s the Pope’s response>

In the area of morality, the ideal is that man follow both the natural law and Divine positive law.

But, when I’m talking about religious freedom, I’m talking more about revealed doctrines such as belief in the Eucharist or the Assumption. Legislating these things by force simply won’t work.

When you say the state has to advocate Divine positive law, are you saying the state must require total Catholic faith from all citizens so that non-Catholics could not be citizens worthy of basic protections in a just state?

Or, are you saying that the state must only enforce Catholic morals but not faith?

<Now, maybe I misunderstood you and you do believe that each man is personally bound to follow all of God’s laws - both the natural law and the positive laws. Maybe you are just saying that the State should limit the framing of its laws according to the laws of nature only and not also according to the postive law as revealed through the Church.>

Yes, I do think man is morally bound to follow all of God’s laws, natural and positive as taught by the Church. But, the primary role of persuading men to do so belongs to the church, not the state. I do think the Church should influence the state and the need for Church influence is constant in any society.

Remember, in Augustine’s theology, the City of God is in constant competition with the City of Man. We should try to establish the best state possible given the circumstances of human life. Simply setting up Catholic states isn’t really possible in our world.

It is our lot to deal with pluralism, without becoming relativists.

<If that is what you are advocating, here’s the Pope’s reply: From this we can see that those who advocate that the State be separated from the Church are in error. Just as man has a duty to obey God, so too does the State; and since God’s laws are made known through the Church, the State should be subject to the [True] Church.>

OK, so Pope Leo thinks America is an unjust state at it’s core? I don’t know. Obviously, America was mostly founded by Protestants and deists, so it’s not the Catholic ideal. But, again, I think we have to appreciate the freedom of worship we have here. Don’t you?

Look at the Muslim countries where you’re either an Allah fearing Muslim, a second class citizen, or dead. Or, China, where you are subject to the godless State or dead.

Is that what we want here, but Catholic style? Should we just start hating non-Catholics and not associate with them any more? Subjugating them to us? Is that what Pope Leo saying in practice?

<Now, obviously this is the ideal, and not possible on all countries, such as America. What we are required to affirm is that this ideal is the ideal, and what we are not allowed to believe is that this ideal is somehow a violation of a pretended right of man, which is what the Liberals claim.>

OK. I may be a liberal on issues of Church and State, but please answer this question. What modern state in your honest assessment is the most just of modern states according to the teaching of Leo XIII?

Also, in an ideal Catholic state, how do you deal with non-Catholics? What is their status?

 

[pseudoanselm]

<If I understood you correctly, what you are basically saying is this: Civil society should be governed by the principles of the natural law only (that which man knows by the light of his reason), and not also by the precepts of the Divine positive law (revelation).>

Well, pretty much. But, in the area of civil morality, the divine positive law does not counter the natural law nor vice versa. So, in civil matters, I don’t think you need to present a law as divinely posited since it can be derived from reason.

So, for example, there are atheists like Nat Hentoff, who are pro-life and think abortion should be illegal. He wasn’t persuaded by divine positive law, but by natual law arguments which are more accessible to people.

So, if divine positive law is consistent with natural law, I think a prudential state should enact the law based upon rational argument, not upon divine authority. This is purely a practical tactic and not a principled stand against obedience to God’s laws.

I will read the encyclical. Leo XIII was great.

<This is what we find, for example, in America, where “the will of the people” determines civil law independent of God’s law. So, for example, as the conservative Rush Limbaugh said, *“if the American people voted in favor of abortion, I would support it; but they didn’t. It was decided by a court”>

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that America is based upon a relativistic legal positivism, in the sense that what is lawful must necessarily be just. Limbaugh is against abortion. He’s simply pointing out that Roe vs. Wade was not only unjust because of WHAT it decided but also in the WAY it was decided. Any one branch of government can be wrong or right.

<This is the mind-set of America. If the “will of the people” decides this or that, so be it, without any reference to the law of God. Now, I don’t think this is what you are advocating, so let’s continue to the next shade of Liberalism…>

Again, I don’t think you can say America is based upon positivism or mob rule. That is certainly one of the weaknesses of our form of government. But, the “will of the people” as expressed in the legislatures do not have absolute power. They can be checked by the courts and the executive branch per their own guidelines in the US constitution.

If the “people” decided to do away with checks and balances, the people would have abolished America as it was founded.*