I am convinced that most people who “do not accept” Vatican II’s document of Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanis, have never taken the time to study it.
Not wanting to labour the point, but I personally have not only studied it, but I know its correct name, which is Dignitatis Humanae - see
vatican.va/…/vat-ii_dec…umanae_en.html -
Furthermore, two popes since Paul VI have reaffirmed its teaching.
It seems like those who disregard this teaching of the Church are not thinking out why they are rejecting it. In other words, what do they propose the Church do? Force people to convert to Christ? Jesus Himself rebuked James and John when they called upon the Lord to rain fire upon those who opposed them.
Please read what the Vatican II document states about religious liberty and explain why it is that some say it is unnacceptable:
*
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that **all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, ***whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.
So the question stands, should the Church force people to convert to Christ? If not, how could this document possibly be in error?
The traditional teaching is that no individual may be coerced in the
private forum, but that no individual or group has the
right to practise a religion in the
public forum contrary to that established by Christ - i.e. the Catholic Church. Ideally, society should be structured with its laws consistent with God’s own Laws. The actual form of government - republic or kingdom - is neutral. In the Middle Ages a genuine effort was made to structure society along these lines.
Traditional teaching is, furthermore, that although this is the ideal, if there are in existence sizeable groups that follow and practise a false religion, it may be the lesser of two evils, for the public good, to
tolerate the false religion in the public forum, pending their conversion for the good of their souls. The preliminary schema to Vatican II was headed
‘On Religious Toleration’. The Church was very emphatic that there can exist no right to practise a false religion in the
public Forum. Yet this was explicitly stated in the Vatican II document that was actually promulgated, with not a single word to explain why there had been this 180 degree change, nor so much as a single quotation of previous Magisterial documents. If we read the Proceedings of all other Ecumenical Councils (as far as we have the records) up to & including Vatican II, we will find that, when a topic was broached, every single relevant magisterial document back to the New Testament was quoted. Why was this not done at Vatican II? Was it because it would have exposed this rejection of previous teaching?
The concept of ‘Religious Liberty’, and indeed the whole concept of ‘Rights’ dangling in the air without any Authority to confer those ‘Rights’, arose in the anti-religioous movement of the 18th century known (by its supporters) as ‘The Enlightenment’, and made very explicit at the French Revolution. The popes had repeatedly warned that the siren song of ‘Religious LIberty’ would end up as allowing
no religion at all. Is it not the case that crucifixes, Christmas cribs, and statues have been banned from schools precisely in the name of Religious Liberty?
In
Dignitatis Humanae we read
They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known,
without, however, saying what is the civil authority to do if a group obstinately refuse to do so. The document also fails to explain what would happen if one group wanted to continue the Aztec religion of cutting out the living hearts of its sacrificial victims and smearing them on the walls, floor and ceiling of the temple, as was done in Mexico. Against the public good? But they honestly believed that this was what kept the sun shining.
Dignitatis Humanae is not an infallible document, and it is open to legitimate criticism. The good intentions of the framers are not in doubt.
That is why certain people, and by no means just the SSPX, have been demanding for 40 years that this issue be properly discussed. To date (and correct me if I am wrong) no other Religious Order has succeeded in opening discussions with the Holy See on this, and a few other, issues with Vatican II.
The SSPX, sadly, has done some serious damage in terms of division alone. I hope and pray for reconciliation!