Interesting⌠was Pius IX a Cafeteria Catholic?
Buzz phrases may pass muster with most people, but with me, youâre going to have to actually make an argument.
Whether or not religious freedom is the right choice is not a matter of objective morality. It depends on the structure and culture of the society at the time. LilyM explained it well:
There have been countries, plenty of examples in medieval Europe, where a single religion was for all intents and purposes enshrined in law - that was by consent of the majority of the governed, who shared that same faith and WANTED it as the basis of their law.
In such situations it was fine, as it would be in some countries today were those countries to be more or less monocultural in matters of religion and willing to have their shared religion enshrined in law.
Piusâ view is that, at least in certain instances, it might be OK to have a single religion in a country, that country being vast majority Catholic, and the citizens willing, and Catholicism enforced by law.
Paul merely says itâs not OK to FORCE Catholic worship in a country where the citizens are opposed to the enshrining of such a religion and where the country ISNâT majority Catholic.
Thatâs the difference right there - the reason this change is not a doctrinal contradiction, and the reason you would be just plain wrong to reject the teaching of
Dignitatis Humanae.
No, this isnât what Pius IX said at all. He says clearly that it is an error to say that the Catholic religion should not be the religion of the state, and that false religions should be able to practice and teach in public.
Thatâs what
you claim Pius IX meant. I agree with LilyM:
Firstly Pius IX specifies that he is talking about CATHOLIC countries. A country the majority of whose citizens ARENâT Catholic cannot be called a Catholic country by any definition. Hence what he says does not apply to, for example, Saudi Arabia.
Secondly, the word âexpedientâ simply means suitable or advisable. Saying Catholicism as the sole state religion is âexpedientâ is a far cry from saying it is mandatory for any country, let alone every country.
Finally, making a blanket statement to the effect that it is NEVER expedient in ANY circumstances would indeed be an error according to the syllabus. But Paul nowhere says that. He says much about forcing a state religion on citizens by fear or other imposition, but free choice and consent of the governed donât constitute any sort of imposition at all. In such a case a law enshrining Catholicism as state religion would be no more an imposition than a law banning murder where all are agreed that murder SHOULD be outlawed.
This clearly means thereâs a difference of interpretation on what Pius IX intended to convey.
As a Catholic, Iâm of the opinion that itâs the Magisterium which has the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition.
It makes no more sense for you or me to reject the Churchâs interpretation of Tradition than for a Protestant to reject the Churchâs interpretation of Scripture.
So Iâll go with an authoritative ecumenical councilâs interpretation of how to apply Pius IXâs teaching on freedom of religion, thanks.
The Pope was condemning the error that says it is no longer expedient for the Catholic religion to be the religion of the state.
Then that must have been the case at the time. For all the reasons explained above, the proper application of these principles depends in part on conditions which differ from society to society.
Here are some more statements of the Catholic position:
"Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the lawâ (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
This quote has nothing to do with religious freedom. In all honesty, the first thing it makes me think of is that Catholics today
must oppose state-sanctioned homosexual âmarriage,â because the state should never promote something objectively disordered and evil.
âThey do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls â an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state⌠When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perditionâ (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
Thereâs no getting around the Catholic position: the Catholic religion should be the official religion of the state, and false religions should not be publicly practiced
Look, I really am open to persuasion on these things, but whenever âtraditionalistsâ find themselves quoting examples of the Catholic Church changing to contradictory positions, I honestly donât see the contradiction.
Your Pius IX quote proves our point. Just look at the opinion which is rejected as âabsurdâ:
*liberty of conscience and worship âŚ] should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state⌠* - rejected as absurd and false by Pius IX
Part of LilyMâs point about Pius IXâs statements is that it still IS true even according to recent Catholic teaching that âliberty of conscience and worshipâ is not necessarily morally necessary in every âproperly constituted state,â which is EXACTLY what Pius IX said in that quote.
Honestly, this last Pius IX quote just reinforces my confidence in our (mine, LilyMâs, the Catholic Churchâs) interpretation.
Maybe if you have authoritative citations from other popes or councilsâŚ
