N
- Status
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
B
bear06
Guest
I’m tired but I’m pretty sure I can agree to that and that is what I’ve been saying all along.
I’m not really sure what part of DH you are referring to. I’d guess this:
What you seem to have missed is the preface to all of this:
Again, we all have the right to not be coerced. Wouldn’t you agree? In fact, I’m pretty sure you already have. When you are coercing someone, you are trying to impede their free will. That said, you are making the jump from the freedom to the act. In other words. We have a right to make a decision. The act we are deciding on, however, may not be a right. That said, we still have the right to make the decision.
If you look at the whole document, it’s all about free will and the excercise thereof. It never says “People have the right to do x.” It says people have the right to the decision.
No and I’m pretty sure that DH doesn’t say that they have the right to that act.
B
bear06
Guest
Life is also a gift. Does this mean it cannot be a right?
B
bear06
Guest
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
** Yes, here is the quote you speak of:**
**Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
**
Baptism of desire can be explicit. Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.” I told him “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you.”
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.
The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Open Letter to Confused Catholics by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chapter 10: Ecumenism. FULL TEXT
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
No, life is not a right. It is an existence. The “right to life” would apply to the right of an innocent person to keep their life; just as an innocent person has a right to keep their eyes, or their tongue. No one would have a right to pluck out a person’s eyes, or cut out a person’s tongue. Why? Because the person has a right to their eyes and or tongue, just as an innocent person has a right to their life. But life itself is not a right, any more than the eye, or tongue is a right.
B
bear06
Guest
So you say. So, my next question is, what would you consider a right? Nighty-night.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Our right flow from and are associated with our duties, while our duties are correspond to what God commands.So you say. So, my next question is, what would you consider a right? Nighty-night.
For example, the primary end of marriage is education and procreation of children. Therefore, when we have children, we have the duty toward God to educate them. Therefore, this duty to educate them also provides, along with it, the “right” to do so. Therefore, we have a right to educate our children, or at least to determine where they are educated, and no authority has the “right” to force us to send our kids to bad schools that will corrupt them.
What is a “right”? A right is a moral power given to us by God. Since we have the duty to educate our children, we have the corresponding moral right to do so. What we do not have the right to do is to not educate our children, since this would be contrary to our duty.
Since we were created to know, love and serve God, we have the right to learn about God (either through reading or contemplation), to love God, and to serve God, but we actually have no right to ignore God, which is why luke-warmness is a sin. In short, we only have the right to do what is necessary for us to fulfill our duties to God, and, since right is a moral power, we have no right to do what God forbids.
Libertas: “For right is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but Iying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State”.
When we are thinking correctly, everything is in perfect order and is subject to God. The Liberalism that we are all saturated with on a daily basis flipps everything upside down. They proclaim for us “rights” that we do not possess (the right to have an abortion, for example), and they attempt to take away rights that we do possess (the right to educate our children).
In another post you said something about this being confusing. I think, after explaining something, you asked “are you confused yet”. One thing about the truth is that it is not confusing. It makes perfect sense, and dispells confusion as light does darkness. It is the errors of liberalism that sow confusion by attempting to turn black into white and white into black. The end results is a confused mixture that appears gray.
We all must be on our guard that we don’t fall into these errors because liberalism is to the faith what Aids is to the body.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Just to be clear, the quote attributed to me in your post #43 was not my statement at all, but from Pax et Caritas.
There seems to be some kind of error in the database relative to what post is being quoted and whose post it was.
N
ncjohn
Guest
This is the same faulty logic that stmaria has been using, where the distinction is not being made between a person’s right to exercise their will and a person’s right to perform an act. Bear has addressed this numerous times and I have addressed it also.
DH only addresses that people should not be either coerced into a religion or prohibited from exercising their religion. Period. End of discussion. It does not in any way condone anyone making wrong choices on any topic whatsoever, or being free from responsibility for wrong choices. How one makes the leap of logic to find DH to in any way state an “any action is ok” position is really beyond me.
It is a simple recognition that there are societies in the world where “error has no rights” is interpreted in line with THEIR state religion, just as the Catholic Church interpreted it when they could enforce a state religion. If Catholics want to to be allowed to make their religious decisions in those societies, which they must be, then other religions must also be free of coercion by the state and have that same right.
There really and truly is nothing difficult here unless one is just bound and determined to try to find a problem because of being locked into a past where it was not considered an issue. We all have a right to our free will, given by God, and to not have someone else prohibit it.
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
"Pax et Caritas:
NCJohn:
NCJohn:
So please answer this: In your opinion, does a women have the right to choose to have an abortion? If not, why not?
Help me out here. How can someone have a right to exercise their will, but not to perform the act that the exercise of their will produces? How can you have the one without the other?
So, if a person’s religion requires them to sacrifice their child, they should not be forbidden from doing so? There have been many religions that require child sacrifice. In fact, the new religion of environmentalism is moving rapidly in that direction. There are women today who have had abortions in order to protect the environment. It this acceptable based on D.H.? After all. as you said “we should not prohobit” these women “from exercising their religion”, should we"?
“It does not condone anyone making wrong choices”, but it does say that they have a “right” to make the wrong choice and to perform the evil act, right?It does not in any way condone anyone making wrong choices on any topic whatsoever, or being free from responsibility for wrong choices. How one makes the leap of logic to find DH to in any way state an “any action is ok” position is really beyond me.
So please answer this: In your opinion, does a women have the right to choose to have an abortion? If not, why not?
N
ncjohn
Guest
I give up. I don’t know if it is just a lack of ability to communicate the differences to you, or an inability or unwillingness on your part to hear them, but either way I’m beating my head against a wall. Your continued need to extrapolate a statement against a government coercing religious views–NOT actions–on people into a totally unrelated acceptance of any action just makes no sense.
Your question has no relationship to the document, or to the topic of the thread. Just so you won’t have to continually try to claim that I have refused to answer your question and then continue to sidetrack the discussion on that basis I will answer it anyway, though the answer has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
A woman has the *free will *to choose an abortion; a free will given by God. A woman does not have the ‘right’ to choose to sin or to commit an illegal act, or to be free of responsibility or consequences for the choice made. And nothing in DH proposes giving anyone those rights.
Now maybe you’ll answer this qustion: Should an Islamic state be able to decide to give Catholics a choice of “convert or die”, such as was given to many of our Native people in the U.S.? If not, why not, keeping in mind that they are also convinced that they are the “one true faith” and that Catholic “errors” have no rights?
That is what DH is all about since the ultimate end of NOT allowing people religious liberty is continual genocide by the religion that has the power in any given society. More Holocausts and Serbias and Darfurs, where “cleansing” and purging of those with different religious views from the majority becomes the law.
S
Strevel
Guest
I am really enjoying the conversation here. Great posts!
Strevel in Vegas!!
Strevel in Vegas!!
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
That was exactly correct, and is what Pope Leo XIII taught in Libertas. He drew the distinction between natural liberty (which is free will), and moral liberty. Natural liberty is what we are able to do (what we have the ability to do); moral liberty is what we are allowed, or have the “right”, to do.
Since we have free will, we are able to do just about anything, but we only have the right to do what is right.
But remember what you said earlier: You claimed that a person had a “right” to exercise their will however they saw fit, but not a right to perform an evil act. This is what you said “the distinction is not being made between a person’s right to exercise their will and a person’s right to perform an act”.
That is a false distinction; and if you really believed it you would have to be promoting a women’s right to choose to have an abotion, since you think that we have a “right” to choose (although you admit that we have no right to perform the act).
No. Why? Because they are a false religion. You may not realize this, but there is a difference between the true religion and false religions, just as there is a difference between truth and error. States that profess the true religion have the God-given right to forbid and supress false religion; and they also have the God-given right to punish any violators.
But a false religion has no such rights, since it is a false religion.
Because the subjective does not determine the objective (what we believe does not become reality). Therefore, what they erroneously believe has not bearing whatsover on truth.
This is where true liberty of conscience comes in. If a Catholic is asked to do something that is contrary to the law of God (worship an idol, for example), he can resist based on liberty of conscience; whereas someone cannot justify a sinful action, such as having an abortion, by appealing to their conscience.
Liberty of conscience is the freedom to do what is right regardless of who forbids it; false liberty of conscience is the justification of evil by appealng to the conscience.
It may be hard for a modern Catholic to understand, but false religions have no rights (neither the right to profess their belief, nor the right to attempt to convert someone), whereas the true religion has the right to do both.
S
stmaria
Guest
S
stmaria
Guest
Did Dignitatis Humanae develope or contradict the following teachings?
Pope Pius IX “Quanta Cura”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm
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.”
Pope Pius IX “Quanta Cura”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm
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.”
- Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.
LIBERTAS
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm - There are others, somewhat more moderate 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
- 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. **
- This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith… Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it.
S
stmaria
Guest
23… **Men have a right **freely and prudently **to propagate **throughout the State **what things so ever are true and honorable, **so that as many as possible may possess them; but Iying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State
- Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, **it is sufficiently refuted **by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong – a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear. This is the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves with intrepid constancy, which the apologists of Christianity confirmed by their writings, and which the martyrs in vast numbers consecrated by their blood"
N
ncjohn
Guest
And DH does not propose to give any “rights” beyond that. It only proposes that governments not coerce anyone’s religious beliefs. It does not in any way address giving any individual the right to sin or perform an evil. That is why I just cannot understand the arguments against it.
Perhaps my wording was not entirely perfect or to your liking in that particular statement, and if it was unclear I apologize. There were numerous other statements that explained exactly what I meant though. Hopefully the last post was more clear.
And here is where we will disagree. There is no such thing as a “state” professing the “true religion”. That is exactly the problem and why DH is so important. States can’t profess a religion; only individuals can profess a religion. States can promote or discourage the values of a religion, and can attempt to coerce religious compliance, but they cannot profess a religion.
And since none of them would agree that the religion that they promote is “false”, they can feel free to coerce others to a beleif system which they promote. DH proposes that States have no business coercing anyone’s belief system.
And whether you believe the subjective *should *overrule the objective, the pure and simple fact is that we have a pluralistic world with societies who believe just as strongly in their system as we Catholics do in ours and the subjective belief of those societies are what people must live under. As such there has to be a system that allows individuals the right to their free will.
DH is not at all about what you term “false liberty of conscience” as it does not address individual’s actions or how they use their free will; only that governments cannot curtail it.
Perhaps a different example would work, at least for those who have endured trying to raise teenagers. You can tell a teen anything in the world, and be completely right objectively, but you cannot force that teen to believe you. As the “government” in this example, you should have the right to promote your objective truth, but you cannot have the right to coerce that teen to accept that truth. That teen cannot be tortured or killed by you for failing to accept your belief.
You can punish wrongdoing that occurs, either out of the belief system (getting an abortion) or out of the “legalities” of family functioning (failing to clean their room). Those are individual actions, which have consequences, and they have no “right” to violate the “law”. But you cannot punish them simply for failing to accept your beliefs as this would be trying to coerce their Catholic belief which all have accepted we cannot do. This is, in essence, what DH says.
I’m finished here as I know of no other ways to say it and won’t convince you if you are stuck on the “letting people do whatever they want” argument. I do appreciate the fact that you are trying to do the right thing here (no pun intended
) as am I. It is possible we’re just talking past each other due to differences in how we perceive terminology. Or perhaps we just have a basic disagreement on what “rights” governments should have over their charges, given that not all governments are going to promote Christian beliefs.Either way, I wish you peace,
P
Pax_et_Caritas
Guest
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: “21 This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide – as they should do – with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man’s capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded” (Libertas).
NCJohn: “That is exactly the problem and why DH is so important. States can’t profess a religion; only individuals can profess a religion”.
The Vicar of Christ: "Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true…"
You really ought to read Libertas. Here’s a link papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm
- Status