What's the problem with Religious Freedom

[Pat_OC]

I’ve been hearing a lot of Catholics taking issue with the idea of religious freedom recently, even that it’s a heresy. I’m not saying I necessarily disagree, I’m just not clear on what the problem is. Wouldn’t religious freedom be a good thing, like constitutional safeguards that prevent a secular state from messing with the faith and letting us practice how we’d like? I can see how it might be an issue within the Church itself, i.e. promoting relativistic thought or leading people to believe there is salvation outside the Church, but without compromising on any teachings and traditions, isn’t the idea that people can choose to listen to the gospel or not? Hell exists because God gives us the choice not to listen/obey him. I have an open mind with this question, I’m just unsure what the problem is exactly.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Can you please give an example of “Catholics taking issue with the idea of religious freedom”?

Here in the USA I am not aware of many Catholics taking issue with religious freedom, particularly since the laws of religious freedom in USA provide a lot of rights for Catholics and other Christians. There may be a small handful or fringe group who have some issue with religious freedom for non-Christians, but they are definitely not the norm.

 

[Pat_OC]

Can you please give an example of “Catholics taking issue with the idea of religious freedom”?

If I had any examples with specific issues I probably wouldn’t have made this thread. More generally, I’ve read comments etc about the concept of religious freedom being a modernist idea/infiltrating through Vatican II. Basically, as if it is inherently/philosophically against Church teaching.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There are pre-Vatican II popes who didn’t like the idea of religious freedom because they favored the old model of a state-sponsored Catholic religion.

And there are traditionalists, especially online, who don’t like Vatican II or anything that came after. They’re a pretty small group when compared to the vast majority of Catholics.

The problem with state-sponsored religion is that it can very easily be used to oppress or harm people, including Catholics if it becomes state-sponsored Islam, state-sponsored Anglicanism, state-sponsored Puritanism, state-sponsored Lutheranism, state-sponsored worship of some dictator like Stalin or Kim, etc. Plus, looking at the track record of European countries, it doesn’t appear that having some religion endorsed by the state really gets people to practice or go to church any more and in fact it could end up having an opposite negative effect.

Man has free will and he needs to freely choose to worship God and accept Jesus Christ and be an active member of the Catholic Church. If he’s forced to do these things by a government authority, then it’s pretty meaningless.

 

[Joe_5859]

Man has free will and he needs to freely choose to worship God and accept Jesus Christ and be an active member of the Catholic Church. If he’s forced to do these things by a government authority, then it’s pretty meaningless.

Yes, this is the bottom line.

The only Catholics I’ve seen that have a problem with religious freedom are those I encounter on the internet who mostly reject Vatican II.

I encourage people to read Dignitatis Humanae for themselves. It is really quite short. Frankly, it puzzles me that anyone could have a problem with it. We cannot force people to be faithful Catholics. Love isn’t love unless it is freely chosen. It cannot be coerced.

I think most objections tend to fall back to the whole “error has no rights.” That’s all well and good, but I’ve yet to see any counterproposals that wouldn’t do violence to the dignity of the human person by forcing people to practice a religion they do not believe in.

 

[Pat_OC]

Thanks guys! Makes sense!