Religous Freedom

[aball1035]

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:

“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, NAMELY, 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… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”

Does this mean that religously free societies aren’t in accordance with the Church?

 

[Jacobus]

This was not an ex cathedra definition of dogma. Pius IX made only one ex cathedra pronouncement, the definition of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[aball1035]

This was not an ex cathedra definition of dogma. Pius IX made only one ex cathedra pronouncement, the definition of the Immaculate Conception.

oh-the source I got it from said it was

 

[Legionary90]

I would suggest reading that Quanta Cura and this article about Dignitatis Humanae and how it can be read in the light of Tradition.

 

[JaMc]

If this was not, actually, an ex cathedra statement, then it must be considered in the context of the time and place in which it was written. In continental Europe, whenever a revolt took place, or a “republic” was established, often, the Church was persecuted in the name of “Religious Freedom.” See, e.g. the French Revolution. Also, Pius IX himself was forcibly divested of the Papal States in Italy. I’m sure Catholics in Britain and Ireland in 1864 might have disagreed with the proposition that freedom to worship was an inherently negative proposition.

However, if it was, in fact, ex cathedra, then freedom of religion in certain societies, at most, must be tolerated as a pragmatic situation in order to keep the peace, while the establishment of a Catholic monarchy is the goal for which to strive. This seems to have been the Church’s position in Europe (if not magisterial, at least policy-wise) for many years.

It is certainly evident that much evil and persecution can take place in the name of “Religious Freedom” - look what the Left is doing in the United States under the guise of “separation of Church and State.” Also, the term “religious freedom” itself seems to be of some controversy. See the SSPX’s problems with the Vatican II documents on the issue. What that boils down to is, does “religious freedom” mean one belief is as good as the next, and worthy of equal respect, or does it mean that the state shouldn’t burn those who don’t belong to the established State church at the stake as heretics?

 

[Abenadar]

Well, was Pius IX wrong?

He said it is an error to believe that “LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT”. Is this false?

This is how I see things:

Do you have the right to sin? NO

Do you have the ability to sin? YES

Do you have the right to exercise liberty of conscience and worship however you? NO

Do you have the ability to exercise liberty of conscience and worship however you want? YES

I just can’t see somebody saying to God “I have the RIGHT not to worship You” because in actuality we all have the duty to worship God (think chapter 1 of the Baltimore Catechism: why did God make me?). And I can see God saying to that man “You don’t have the right not to worship Me, though I have given you the ability by your free will not to”.

 

[JaMc]

Well, was Pius IX wrong?

He said it is an error to believe that “LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT”. Is this false?

This is how I see things:

Do you have the right to sin? NO

Do you have the ability to sin? YES

Do you have the right to exercise liberty of conscience and worship however you? NO

Do you have the ability to exercise liberty of conscience and worship however you want? YES

I just can’t see somebody saying to God “I have the RIGHT not to worship You” because in actuality we all have the duty to worship God (think chapter 1 of the Baltimore Catechism: why did God make me?). And I can see God saying to that man “You don’t have the right not to worship Me, though I have given you the ability by your free will not to”.

Interpreted this way, I would agree with Pope Pius IX - certainly, we do not have a moral to believe as we please. However, I believe the OP is asking, are countries with constitutional protections on the free exercise of religion, like the United States, evil? I.e., should we have the legal right to "“LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP”?

 

[diggerdomer]

Does this mean that religously free societies aren’t in accordance with the Church?

No.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

 

[duckbill]

Well, was Pius IX wrong?

He said it is an error to believe that “LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT”. Is this false?

This is how I see things:

Do you have the right to sin? NO

Do you have the ability to sin? YES

Do you have the right to exercise liberty of conscience and worship however you? NO

Do you have the ability to exercise liberty of conscience and worship however you want? YES

I just can’t see somebody saying to God “I have the RIGHT not to worship You” because in actuality we all have the duty to worship God (think chapter 1 of the Baltimore Catechism: why did God make me?). And I can see God saying to that man “You don’t have the right not to worship Me, though I have given you the ability by your free will not to”.

I like the way you explain it. I hope your correct. I have thought the pressure on Vatican II was that Catholics were being persecuted in Communist countries and made them revisit this Pius IX teaching. I’ve been thinking about it and I would say that the Church was seeing “Do unto other as you would have them do to you” It became clearer in the Communist situation. The Church was fighting for her existence and was demanding freedom of religion especially for the Soviet controlled countries.

The question I have is Pius IX exercising discipline or doctrine in his teaching?

Doctrine usually is expressed as a categorical truth. “Fire is hot” “John is a Boy” no exceptions.

Discipline usually has to do with how or when an action should take place " Always make a fire when your cold" “John must go to school to learn” Now we can get warm in other ways or John could learn without school, like Abe Lincoln or Edison.

But some of these long statements by Popes take a while to be clear because they mix them sometimes.

Anyway I like your explanation plus: “Do unto other as you would have them do to you” I would like to practice my religion in a Communist or Muslim country, so why can’t they ( as long as they don’t hurt anyone like Satanism) be allowed some freedom in a Catholic country?

 

[Abenadar]

I believe the OP is asking, are countries with constitutional protections on the free exercise of religion, like the United States, evil? I.e., should we have the legal right to "“LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP”?

Wow, good questions! I don’t know.

I’m not sure if I would consider these countries to be “evil” even if they are incorrect in some of their laws etc. I mean, rarely do we term a person “evil” because he sins or is wrong about certain things.

 

[JaMc]

Wow, good questions! I don’t know.

I’m not sure if I would consider these countries to be “evil” even if they are incorrect in some of their laws etc. I mean, rarely do we term a person “evil” because he sins or is wrong about certain things.

Maybe “evil” was a bit too harsh a word on my part, though Pius IX certainly seemed to think that the idea of “Religious Freedom,” whatever that may mean, was evil: “Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED” - some pretty strong words.

 

[Abenadar]

Maybe “evil” was a bit too harsh a word on my part, though Pius IX certainly seemed to think that the idea of “Religious Freedom,” whatever that may mean, was evil: “Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED” - some pretty strong words.

Strong words…Exactly. Perhaps religious freedom is evil. At the same time, Catholics don’t convert “by the sword”, so I guess practitioners of other religions were merely tolerated in Catholic countries.

 

[yablabo]

This was not an ex cathedra definition of dogma. Pius IX made only one ex cathedra pronouncement, the definition of the Immaculate Conception.

If the statement provided in the original post meets the requirement for an ex cathedra statement as laid out in the First Vatican Council, then it is a definition of dogma.

Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Ch. 13 v. 9:

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

– Nicole

 

[thunderballs75]

We should remember that there are differences between religious *freedom *and religious tolerance.

 

[JaMc]

We should remember that there are differences between religious *freedom *and religious tolerance.

That is likely true. However, in the mind of the average person in the street, the terms are interchangable. So, if the current Pope came out and said “religious freedom is bad,” the resulting uproar would make the controversies over some of the Pope’s past statements look like child’s play.