Traditional Catholic teaching does not support religious freedom?

[Ana_v]

A Facebook friend shared an image that displayed Cardinal Timothy Dolan and a quote of his, “Religious freedom is the lifeblood of the American people, the cornerstone of American government.”

In the comment thread, a person, who judging by his profile appears to be a Catholic, said:

“Here’s the thing, this is actually contrary to Traditional Catholic teaching. The church does not believe in religious liberty for all. Rather, the church maintains that all gov’t has the moral obligation to recognize Christ as King and to have laws in place to safeguard true faith and morals.”

Which magisterial documents or writings of Catholic theologians of the past, is he alluding to, that favorably speak of theocracy?

 

[john81]

A Facebook friend shared an image that displayed Cardinal Timothy Dolan and a quote of his, “Religious freedom is the lifeblood of the American people, the cornerstone of American government.”

In the comment thread, a person, who judging by his profile appears to be a Catholic, said:

“Here’s the thing, this is actually contrary to Traditional Catholic teaching. The church does not believe in religious liberty for all. Rather, the church maintains that all gov’t has the moral obligation to recognize Christ as King and to have laws in place to safeguard true faith and morals.”

Which magisterial documents or writings of Catholic theologians of the past, is he alluding to, that favorably speak of theocracy?

I think the essence of the argument is that true religous liberty (the concept) calls for all religions to be considered equal, when we know in fact only the True Church of Christ has a place in society since it is the only Church that saves souls. To recogize all faiths as equal (as Vatican II asserts) is probably what your friend meant when he disputed the religous liberty position. If we really believe that all religions are equal and have a place in society (to save souls that is) then we are acknowledging that no one religion is better than another, and that Christ’s teachings are no better than another faith’s teachings.

This does not mean the traditional Catholic teaching is to persecute those who don’t believe, but rather to evangelize and “liberate” (in a sense) them from the slavery of the their misguided minds and souls.

True religious liberty does not just seek to allow everyone to worship as they please, but rather to have all people pleased because they believe that their worship is equal and therefore adaquate enough for eternal salvation.

God bless

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think the essence of the argument is that true religous liberty (the concept) calls for all religions to be considered equal, when we know in fact only the True Church of Christ has a place in society since it is the only Church that saves souls. To recogize all faiths as equal (as Vatican II asserts) is probably what your friend meant when he disputed the religous liberty position. If we really believe that all religions are equal and have a place in society (to save souls that is) then we are acknowledging that no one religion is better than another, and that Christ’s teachings are no better than another faith’s teachings.

This does not mean the traditional Catholic teaching is to persecute those who don’t believe, but rather to evangelize and “liberate” (in a sense) them from the slavery of the their misguided minds and souls.

True religious liberty does not just seek to allow everyone to worship as they please, but rather to have all people pleased because they believe that their worship is equal and therefore adaquate enough for eternal salvation.

God bless

 

[Ana_v]

To recogize all faiths as equal (as Vatican II asserts) is probably what your friend meant when he disputed the religous liberty position. If we really believe that all religions are equal and have a place in society (to save souls that is) then we are acknowledging that no one religion is better than another, and that Christ’s teachings are no better than another faith’s teachings.

True religious liberty does not just seek to allow everyone to worship as they please, but rather to have all people pleased because they believe that their worship is equal and therefore adaquate enough for eternal salvation.

God bless

Not to throw the thread into a tangent, but, is monarchy (regardless if it offends American sensibilities) more conducive to the fulfillment of moral obligations on the Church’s part as well as the common people’s?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Not to throw the thread into a tangent, but, is monarchy (regardless if it offends American sensibilities) more conducive to the fulfillment of moral obligations on the Church’s part as well as the common people’s?

In my opinion, a benevolent monarchy (a true, Catholic monarchy) is the best form of government. You have persistent laws that are not subject to change every four years, a ruler who’s goal is truly the welfare of his people, and a built in system of protection (assuming we’re operating on the feudal-era system of monarchy).

The reason that is has such a bad connotation is because the rulers generally weren’t benevolent.

If we were lead by a Catholic king who stuck to Catholic moral teaching then yes, it would most definitely be better for us spiritually.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think the essence of the argument is that true religous liberty (the concept) calls for all religions to be considered equal, when we know in fact only the True Church of Christ has a place in society since it is the only Church that saves souls. To recogize all faiths as equal (as Vatican II asserts) is probably what your friend meant when he disputed the religous liberty position. If we really believe that all religions are equal and have a place in society (to save souls that is) then we are acknowledging that no one religion is better than another, and that Christ’s teachings are no better than another faith’s teachings.

This does not mean the traditional Catholic teaching is to persecute those who don’t believe, but rather to evangelize and “liberate” (in a sense) them from the slavery of the their misguided minds and souls.

True religious liberty does not just seek to allow everyone to worship as they please, but rather to have all people pleased because they believe that their worship is equal and therefore adaquate enough for eternal salvation.

God bless

That’s precisely the wrong definition of religious liberty that leads critics of Vatican II to view Dignitatis Humanae as somehow breaking from the Catholic tradition (when, of course, it does no such thing). This is really where the confusion comes in.

Religious liberty doesn’t mean that all religions are equal. Religious liberty has to do with the rights of the individual. It means that human beings possess an inherent dignity and free will and thus must be free from any coercion to choose their religious beliefs and practices.

There is no implication in this at all that every religion must therefore be equal. Let’s look at an analogy. You could take 26 “Deal or No Deal” briefcases and ask someone to pick one. For a person’s freedom and dignity to be respected, they cannot be coereced into choosing a particular case. But that certainly doesn’t mean they all have the same value.

 

[DavidFilmer]

is monarchy (regardless if it offends American sensibilities) more conducive to the fulfillment of moral obligations on the Church’s part as well as the common people’s?

In addition to being the center of the Catholic Faith, the Vatican is also a sovereign nation - it fields ambassadors, prints its own postage stamps, etc.

Politically speaking, the Pope is classified as an appointed absolute monarch (and has always been).

In the history of human society, monarchies have been the most successful form of governance, though most of them have been hereditary monarchies.

 

[Joe_5859]

Which magisterial documents or writings of Catholic theologians of the past, is he alluding to, that favorably speak of theocracy?

You might ask him that question.

 

[Soler]

From the last section of Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. Note that Pius IX is saying that all of these statements are false, which leads to double negatives at nos. 77 and 79.
Syllabus of Errors:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

 

[thewanderer]

I think the essence of the argument is that** true religous liberty (the concept) calls for all religions to be considered equal**, when we know in fact only the True Church of Christ has a place in society since it is the only Church that saves souls.

I’m a little confused, I don’t see any reason why the concept of religious liberty requires any sort of judgment as to the relative worth of religions. Can you clarify why you think that is necessarily implied in the concept of religious freedom?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’m a little confused, I don’t see any reason why the concept of religious liberty requires any sort of judgment as to the relative worth of religions. Can you clarify why you think that is necessarily implied in the concept of religious freedom?

It doesn’t, they were mistaken. Some of the previous posts explain that.

 

[thewanderer]

It doesn’t, they were mistaken. Some of the previous posts explain that.

Don’t worry, I am all for religious liberty, but its precisely because my understanding of religious liberty does **not **exclude the notion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, I think Joe5859 expressed my views pretty well. It is wrong to co-erce someone into a religion, nevermind that they still won’t actually believe the religion, but would just be following it because they are forced to by some external force. I was asking him to clarify why he would think it implies equality of religion because I really don’t see that implication and believe he is wrong to make such a claim.

 

[cornbread_r2]

From the last section of Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. Note that Pius IX is saying that all of these statements are false, which leads to double negatives at nos. 77 and 79.

When I first ran across the Syllabus several years ago I thought, “That’s a very progressive piece of work.” – until I got to the bit where it said that all of those ideas were condemned.

IIRC, Benedict XVI called Vatican II the “anti-Syllabus” because of its move toward ecumenicism.

 

[thewanderer]

From the last section of Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. Note that Pius IX is saying that all of these statements are false, which leads to double negatives at nos. 77 and 79.

Originally Posted by Syllabus of Errors

What I find really interesting about this is the fact that it is talking about expediency, in particular, the expediency of an action at a particular point in time. Now, especially in the past the Church has not been shy about outright condeming opinions as false which it saw as being, everywhere and at all times false, if it thought that it was flase that it could ever be expedient I have no doubts that they would have clearly said so.

 

[john81]

Don’t worry, I am all for religious liberty, but its precisely because my understanding of religious liberty does **not **exclude the notion that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, I think Joe5859 expressed my views pretty well. It is wrong to co-erce someone into a religion, nevermind that they still won’t actually believe the religion, but would just be following it because they are forced to by some external force. I was asking him to clarify why he would think it implies equality of religion because I really don’t see that implication and believe he is wrong to make such a claim.

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum:

"…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.
2. 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."

This is the teaching of the Church and is why I said that the “concept” of religious liberty leads to religious indifference and the loss of Christ as our King.

God bless

 

[BillP]

Which magisterial documents or writings of Catholic theologians of the past, is he alluding to, that favorably speak of theocracy?

Both these:

Gregory XVI, in “Mirari vos” of August 15, 1832 DS 2730: “We now continue with a most fertile cause of evils by which we deplore that the Church at present is being afflicted, that is, indifferentism, or that evil opinion…that by any profession of faith whatsoever, the eternal salvation of the soul can be attained, if morals are kept to the norm of the right and good… And from this must putrid font of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous view or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience should be asserted and claimed for just anyone.”

Pius IX, “Quanta cura,” Dec. 8, 1864 *** 3.162: [We have added numbers for convenience in commenting]". 1.“For you know well…that there are not a few, who…applying that impious and absurd principle of what is called naturalism, dare to teach, ‘that the best state of public society and civil progress absolutely requires that human society should be so constituted and governed, that there is no consideration of religion, as if it [religion] did not exist, or at least with no distinction made between true and false religions.’”

 

[john81]

That’s precisely the wrong definition of religious liberty that leads critics of Vatican II to view Dignitatis Humanae as somehow breaking from the Catholic tradition (when, of course, it does no such thing). This is really where the confusion comes in.

Religious liberty doesn’t mean that all religions are equal. Religious liberty has to do with the rights of the individual. It means that human beings possess an inherent dignity and free will and thus must be free from any coercion to choose their religious beliefs and practices.

There is no implication in this at all that every religion must therefore be equal. Let’s look at an analogy. You could take 26 “Deal or No Deal” briefcases and ask someone to pick one. For a person’s freedom and dignity to be respected, they cannot be coereced into choosing a particular case. But that certainly doesn’t mean they all have the same value.

But don’t you see that the cases are given the appearance of equality looking from the outside? What religious liberty says is “all those cases are equal, so make your choice” when in fact that is a lie, there is the million dollar case (the Catholic Church) and all the rest are $0. Please read the post I gave from Pope Leo XIII and the following one from Pope Gergory and Pius IX by another member.

God bless!

 

[john81]

A Facebook friend shared an image that displayed Cardinal Timothy Dolan and a quote of his, “Religious freedom is the lifeblood of the American people, the cornerstone of American government.”

In the comment thread, a person, who judging by his profile appears to be a Catholic, said:

“Here’s the thing, this is actually contrary to Traditional Catholic teaching. The church does not believe in religious liberty for all. Rather, the church maintains that all gov’t has the moral obligation to recognize Christ as King and to have laws in place to safeguard true faith and morals.”

Which magisterial documents or writings of Catholic theologians of the past, is he alluding to, that favorably speak of theocracy?

Pope Leo XIII encylclical LIBERTAS PRAESTANTISSIMUM papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm

God bless

 

[thewanderer]

Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum:

"…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.
2. 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."

This is the teaching of the Church and is why I said that the “concept” of religious liberty leads to religious indifference and the loss of Christ as our King.

God bless

This is the teaching about a specific understanding of the words ‘religious liberty’. My understanding of ‘religious liberty’, when I talk about it in a positive light, comes directly from the Church’s teachings about free will. Unless you want to say that the Church contradicts herself, you might want to be open to the fact that the words ‘religious liberty’ can be used in different ways and to mean different things.

 

[john81]

This is the teaching about a specific understanding of the words ‘religious liberty’. My understanding of ‘religious liberty’, when I talk about it in a positive light, comes directly from the Church’s teachings about free will. Unless you want to say that the Church contradicts herself, you might want to be open to the fact that the words ‘religious liberty’ can be used in different ways and to mean different things.

Free will and liberty are not the same thing!

The point that Pope Leo XIII is trying to get across is that the permission for poeple to use their free will to choose evil (sin for instance), is actually not true liberty. Please read the entire encylical and the Pope shows your misconception of liberty. In fact it will answer most of your questions regarding all liberties and free will.

Yes the Church has always taught that we have free will, but it has never taught that we should use that free will to choose evil. To choose evil is actually slavery since we are doing something that goes against our reasoning and intellect. Christ said the truth shall set you free (i.e. Liberate you from the slavery of sin).

I am not saying that the Church is contradictory, only that Vatican II may have been wrong since at least three previous popes speak against religious liberty.

God bless