FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Fix It, Fix It Good
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Great article written by a blogger:

Fix It, Fix It Good
The White Lily Blog

http://thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com/20...x-it-good/

"You already know this.  You’ve been through it before.  You rejoiced when the Vatican released Redemptionis Sacramentum and you sat back and waited for your local parish to clean up its liturgy.  You waited for the confessional to be open on a regular and convenient basis associated with mass times, you waited for the Blessed Sacrament to be moved back to a place of reverence in your church, and you waited for the eucharistic ministers in short skirts and high heels to retire, as Redemptionis Sacramentum asked.  You’re still waiting.  Rome spoke, and no one listened – -just like usual.  And no one’s checking, either.  (Maybe that’s why no one’s listening.)

And everyone’s talking about how reverent the Holy Father’s masses are, kneeling to receive communion, receiving on the tongue, suitable music.  Unfortunately, in your parish they’re not imitating him.

Still, you have these hopes that when the talks between SSPX and the Vatican are finished, firm directives will be issued that will stop once and for all the kidnapping of Catholic identity by aliens.  People will get fired, or denounced, or excommunicated in certain cases – -and that’s how it should be.

Think again. Check out vaticanista Sandro Magister take on the situation, at Chiesa.com. He first discusses the most recent theological assaults on the stealth doctrine transmitted by Vatican Council II, and then draws a disturbing but not entirely surprising conclusion.

He begins by discussing Brunero Gherardini.  Thomist theologian, Canon of the Basilica of Saint Peter, professor emeritus of the Pontifical Lateran University and director of the magazine “Divinitas” Brunero Gherardini, in his The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion, asks the Holy Father to reexamine the documents of Vatican Council II in order to clarify once and for all the doctrine contained there.

Gherardini’s work  joins that of Romano Amerio’s great Iota Unum, another definitive theological commentary on the doctrinal mischief of Vatican II. So we have, besides the work of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and others, these heavy volumes, the life work of two of the greatest Catholic intellectuals of the twentieth century, that defy the empty axiom that ‘the Council is innocent,’ that it was only the ‘spirit’ of the Council that was faulty.

That this misinformed ‘spirit’ already has been exorcised by the spattering of directives like Redemptionis Sacramentum constituting the ‘reform of the reform’ is the official line, apparently, for the flurry of reform has ceased, and the Vatican has moved on to World Peace.  These painstaking textual analyses establish on the contrary that the error truly is at the doctrinal level, buried in the ambiguities of constitutions of the Council themselves.  Gherardini in particular forcefully discredits Benedict XVI’s ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ regarding the Council and calls for a full-on vetting of the constitutions themselves.

And Gherardini calls urgently for the Holy Father, having finally understood the theological implications of Vatican II, to fix it, to re-state unambiguously the Truths of our Faith regarding the liturgy, the nature of the priesthood, the presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, the value of baptism and Catholicism, our relation to the secular state, the historicity of Christ, the unlawfulness of sodomy, the indissoluble nature of marriage, the existence of both heaven and hell, and the primacy of God, and the other distortions or destructions of Catholic doctrine.

The thing is, there’s a little problem with the fixing, and Magister has fished it out.  Apparently the pope doesn’t do that anymore, and furthermore, speaking only of doctrine and not the role of the papacy now, post-Council,  although Benedict XVI is called a traditionalist regarding the liturgy, Benedict simply doesn’t agree with their findings, and he has already said so.  Magister reports on Amerio’s most recent (and as yet untranslated into English) work, Zibaldone, a lifetime collection of aphorisms, stories, and commentaries on events of the day, which raises this question: fix it how? According to the afterword of Amerio’s disciple, Enrico Maria Radaelli, who edited his work, the fix must not consist of more of the same ineffective “pastoralism” from Benedict XVI that is characterized by weak suggestions without any concern for follow-up, but rather with a dogmatic proclamation ‘ex cathedra’ that strikes with anathema those who do not obey.

According to Sandro Magister, however, this is what they aren’t going to get.  Although both Gherardini and Amerio considered Benedict the 16th to be  ’a friendly pope,” Magister says that there is no chance that he will grant either of their requests.  Magister writes, “On the contrary, both on the whole and on some controversial points, Pope Joseph Ratzinger has already made it known that he does not at all share their positions” on the important doctrinal issues they have raised.

Both the theologians, for example, question extensively the use and implication of the formula “subsists in” regarding the primacy of the Catholic Church vis a vis other religions, when the traditional formula says, not that the Catholic Church ‘subsists’ with other religions in a greater church larger than all of them, but that the Catholic Church is the greater church.  In changing that formula, both Gherardini and Amerio, not to mention very many lesser theologians and not to mention SSPX, have argued a profound alteration of tradition, but in the summer of 2007, the congregation for the doctrine of the Faith asserted that the council had correctly “developed, deepened, and more fully explained it,” an answer that truly strikes terror into the hearts of those who understand the significance.

Furthermore, writes Magister, in explaining the declaration on religious freedom found in the constitution “Dignitanis Humanae” Benedict himself has written that it recovers “the deepest patrimony of the church,” another statement fully understood and fully lamented by traditionalists, who interpret that phrasing as a way to rationalize the change it clearly represents from the popes of the previous century especially, who taught forcefully that the call for religious freedom was a siren song opening the door to relativism and ultimately to the victory of the secular state over Faith. The previous century was not different in substance from our own. We have faced the same conditions in the world since the Reformation. This teaching changes the Church’s orientation from one of non-conformity to the secularized, protestantized, to conformity to it .

Magister has been right about Benedict before, according to commentators like “Foreign Policy” magazine, writing about his correct calling of Benedict’s coolness toward the Islamic community.  Thus, Magister’s cautionary comment on the after word to Amerio’s recent work is very daunting, although it makes one remember, and put in perspective, Bishop Fellay saying, regarding the talks between the Vatican and SSPX, that ‘it could take 100 years.’ (It was comforting that he spoke of it so calmly.) In any case Magister quotes and interprets with no small authority these two pertinent proclamations; furthermore, Benedict XVI’s writings on homosexuality (please see “Holy Smoking Gun” here on the home page for links to the texts) are couched in the same ambiguous pastoral language as the council itself, and have done their part to bring the Church to the precipice before which we stand. It may be terribly true that Benedict XVI is not the pope friendly to tradition that, because of his writings on the liturgy and because of his actions toward SSPX and the traditional mass, he is seen to be (although the expurging of the excommunications and Summorum Pontificum may both be seen as strategic, ultimately in service to modernism, however much one may wish not).

Apparently the afterword by Radaelli addresses as well a profound mystery: the obedience of men being asked to jump off a cliff.  For all that he agrees with SSPX point for point doctrinally, Gherardini rails at them for refusing to live with the negative consequences of the Council! (40)  Nor does Amerio, who unequivocally condemns the Council, more so than Gherardini, advocate for the kind of separation chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre, even though he firmly believed, according to the afterword, as Magister writes of it, that Vatican II was not infallible because it was not teaching ‘ex cathedra’ as a doctrinal council. But even on matters not taught ex cathedra, the Church still must be obeyed, even to the point of death. Because to act otherwise is to say that the Church has lost the truth. And if the Church has lost the Truth, the Church is lost. We are lost.  We will have lost the sacraments, we will have lost the priesthood, we will have no priests even to hide in the attic.  Melchizedek’s line on which Christ laid hands will finally be broken.  It is unspeakable.

Are end times upon us, then?  This is the mystery, for here we are, it is July, the sun is shining, birds are singing, corn is growing, babies are being born (although so few).

SSPX answers that above all one must be obedient to Tradition itself, and that this is an extraordinary time and the most serious crisis the church has ever faced, and one must not jump off the cliff.  That is the advice any mother must give. It’s a pity that Amerio’s and Gherardini’s mothers forgot to remind them of that before they left the house: if they ask you to jump off a cliff, son, don’t do it.

But nevertheless, what will we do, when Benedict fails to speak, as Magister warns? Will the last traditional Catholics finally all go with SSPX–but SSPX will need new bishops long before a hundred years of discussion has passed, even if the healing clarification is enforced. Will they consecrate others?  After mass, sitting over coffee in the basements of their usually second rate facilities, one senses the deep distaste with which SSPX faithful view this conundrum as the road out of exile disappears into the next century.

So then we must pray, and mortify ourselves, and remain patient and find love among the ruins.  It is nothing more than the life of Christ, and the life of all Catholics since the Church began, and anyway they aren’t disemboweling us – - yet.  Still, one has sympathy for that group of young people that met the Holy Father on the dock at Malta earlier this year.  “How are we to live?” They repeatedly asked him in their embarrassing little play.  Indeed."

I am sorry but did I miss something?

Where is the quote, video, recording, or document in which his Holiness has denounced these two individuals and shot down their ideas.

As i see it having read Card. Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy" it is fairly to say that I find the allegation in this article quite dubious and rather overtly panicked about something he or she knows little about.
(07-15-2010, 05:07 PM)Unum Sint Wrote: [ -> ]I am sorry but did I miss something?

Where is the quote, video, recording, or document in which his Holiness has denounced these two individuals and shot down their ideas.

As i see it having read Card. Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy" it is fairly to say that I find the allegation in this article quite dubious and rather overtly panicked about something he or she knows little about.

Dear Unum Sint,

What do you think the article is allegating?

This article was taken from my blog, and the links to the referenced quotes are no longer hot. You would have to go to the blog to go to the links. And of course it is true that I do not know enough, but I have read everything Josef Ratzinger wrote. Sandro Magister is a well known commentator and is hostile to SSPX and so is as good a source as one could wish if one wishes to read a position independent of theirs.
I think this does make some interesting points. I think we would all love to see vice punished and purveyors of error excommunicated. However, when many criticized the Pope for not doing the same to those who taught that simony was acceptable a millennium ago, St. Peter Damian defended the Pope saying, "Hence it would be proper that they who are eager to depose all by group action should observe the moderate solution proposed by Innocent, of whom we spoke above.  "As often," he said "as a sin is committed by whole peoples or by a large group, since it cannot be avenged on all because of their great number, one usually lets it go unpunished." Letter 40 (citing Innocent I, Epistola 17.6). I see a similar justification for lack of punishment being applicable to many issues today.
Quote: Both the theologians, for example, question extensively the use and implication of the formula “subsists in” regarding the primacy of the Catholic Church vis a vis other religions, when the traditional formula says, not that the Catholic Church ‘subsists’ with other religions in a greater church larger than all of them, but that the Catholic Church is the greater church.  In changing that formula, both Gherardini and Amerio, not to mention very many lesser theologians and not to mention SSPX, have argued a profound alteration of tradition, but in the summer of 2007, the congregation for the doctrine of the Faith asserted that the council had correctly “developed, deepened, and more fully explained it,” an answer that truly strikes terror into the hearts of those who understand the significance.

To me, the allegation that the phrase "subsistit in" means the Catholic Church is part of a greater Church with other religions is reminiscent of Orthodox allegations that the Filioque means a double spiration. Despite being clarified that it is not the case multiple times, it still gets thrown out there. Here are some of the clarifications that said this is not true:

" . . . the Council chose the word subsistit  precisely in order to make it clear that there exists a single 'subsistence' of the true Church, while outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae exist, which — as elements of the Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church".

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the book "Church: Charism and Power" by Fr. Leonardo Boff, 1985.

"The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen Gentium".

Declaration Dominus Iesus, n. 6, August 2000, footnote 56.

From the latest document On Certain Questions regarding the Doctrine on the Church:

"Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church."

Here are a couple more articles on this (by two priests in the discussions with the SSPX) which show this phrase intends to mean a perduring reality.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.HTM

Quote:Furthermore, writes Magister, in explaining the declaration on religious freedom found in the constitution “Dignitanis Humanae” Benedict himself has written that it recovers “the deepest patrimony of the church,” another statement fully understood and fully lamented by traditionalists, who interpret that phrasing as a way to rationalize the change it clearly represents from the popes of the previous century especially, who taught forcefully that the call for religious freedom was a siren song opening the door to relativism and ultimately to the victory of the secular state over Faith. The previous century was not different in substance from our own. We have faced the same conditions in the world since the Reformation. This teaching changes the Church’s orientation from one of non-conformity to the secularized, protestantized, to conformity to it .

Pope Benedict's approach to this issue is definitely not the same as the approach taken in the 19th century, but I'm not convinced he completely abandons the principles--he primarily sees the instruction in DH as a practical, but not metaphysical judgment (which is what the official relatio says DH is). Here's the full context of the above quote:

Pope Benedict XVI Wrote:It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedi...ia_en.html
(07-15-2010, 06:45 PM)Jan B. Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-15-2010, 05:07 PM)Unum Sint Wrote: [ -> ]I am sorry but did I miss something?

Where is the quote, video, recording, or document in which his Holiness has denounced these two individuals and shot down their ideas.

As i see it having read Card. Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy" it is fairly to say that I find the allegation in this article quite dubious and rather overtly panicked about something he or she knows little about.

Dear Unum Sint,

What do you think the article is allegating?

This article was taken from my blog, and the links to the referenced quotes are no longer hot. You would have to go to the blog to go to the links. And of course it is true that I do not know enough, but I have read everything Josef Ratzinger wrote. Sandro Magister is a well known commentator and is hostile to SSPX and so is as good a source as one could wish if one wishes to read a position independent of theirs.

The actions that you propose are taking place at the highest levels of the Church of such a crucial nature that I would not subscribe to this type of speculation, specially in this subject.

What you have alleged is compared to yelling "There may be fire" in a crowded theater.
The article seems to be a silly rant.
Thank you for your very thorough reply to some points in my article. I think it could take me weeks and weeks to reply! So I just wanted to touch bases on a couple of things.  First, your points support an argument against Amerio and Gherardini, not against me. They are both for the traditional, unreformed, struggle against 'religious freedom,' and they both see the meaning of the basic and fundamental change in the word 'subsist' regarding the Church. So would you please read them and reply to their arguments? My point (or rant, for Unus [we're on a first name basis now]) was to bring up that Sandro Magister has observed that Benedict disagrees with them, has already spoken on the subject, and that no new statement could be expected, however much the buzz, especially on the newer Gherardini book. I wished to get also to a second point, that for those of us who for good and substantial reason (as argued by as other popes in the last two centuries)  disagree with the idea that 'true reform is a matter of continuity and discontinuity,"  the first and revealing sentence in the context you provided for the original quote,  for the many traditionalists who disagree with that idea, we had best be prepared for a longer wait than perhaps we anticipated when Benedict first became pope, especially based on his liturgical writings.

So I am asking you to reply to Amerio and Gherardini, and not to me, on the subsist argument and religious freedom as well. But if you could allow me some further observations on what you wrote, as a lay person and not a theologian.

I have been trying to use the quote feature on the site to take your points verbatim, but it isn't functioning well. I am going to have to paraphrase, I hope it works out. First, your comparison of criticizing discontinuity on the issues of 'subsist in' and religious freedom to St. Peter Damien's dismissal of the same charge regarding a change in the teaching about simony, saying in effect that conditions had changed, and therefore it was okay to change our teaching now: Simony and the nature of the Church (which controls our missionary work within and without our society, among other things) are so far apart in centrality (a caveat Benedict himself gave in that context quote you supplied, which now I cannot go mark and copy) that it is unjustified to make any such comparison. Simony is not doctrine! Furthermore, St. Peter Damien must take a back seat to the teachings of Leo XIII and Pius X, among others on the two points under discussion, even if he were commenting on these central issues and not a marginal one like simony.

Second, please take a look at the very first sentence Benedict wrote in the context quote you supplied. Having closed out the comment dialogue box, I find I can copy and paste (I moved to Word--is this your blog? the comment dialogue box is buggy) , so here is the quote:
"It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists."
This is misleading altogether. There is no discontinuity possible in doctrine, only in strategy, and to fail to make that distinction from the beginning is to open the door to 'adjustment' of all kinds.  Must I go look up St. Paul's quote?--don't change a thing, don't add, don't subtract?
Then there is this quote, which I am so glad you found, as it captures it all:
"It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State."
Yes, she clearly rejected THAT religion and as soon as she could set up her OWN. Was that wrong? The whole middle ages in which the modern university system was founded, infanticide was finally eradicated, marriage was elevated to a sacrament, protection of the poor was paramount, their access to education and health care (which was decent, by the way) was provided for at a very high level, given their economics--all that was wrong, the Church should have continued with some principle from 'antiquity' that said She should never rule?
No, dear heart. Of course she should have conquered all hearts and should have established a State that, while attending to things the State tends to like roads, should share basic principles and values with Truth as held by our Church.  That is what St. Pius XII taught, what Leo XIII taught, what Pius XI taught.
And what of this "modern State' which Benedict writes (it is just a re-statement of the constitutions of VII) the' Church has recognized and made its own' (!!!)? What of this state, founded on democracy? Have we not now voted to kill our children? Do we not permit divorce? Will we not, very shortly, permit euthanasia?
And would not a Church which had refused and continues to refuse recognition to democracy--and capitalism, by the way--be in a better position to defend us against this ravening hoard? Benedict has been reduced to praising Obama on every possible and embarrassing occasion--so that Notre Dame ought not to have been a surprise at all, and the failure of 'heads to roll' ought not to have been a surprise, although traditionalists expressed great surprise and indignation and consternation.

I could not write the book again here to refute this open modernism, but if you could please read They Have Uncrowned Him? You will regain your sense of Catholic history and Catholic purpose.
Our times have not 'changed' since the Reformation.  We are engaged in exactly the same struggle, only downstream. There is no need to adjust anything but our tactics. We must restore the Faith and the Confessional State. I don't know how but neither did Lenin, before all those events which precipitated their seizure of state!  We must still protect ourselves and especially our weakest from both the ravages of capitalism,  the economic system that went with protestant heresy, and the oppression of socialism. We must develop and vote for Catholic economic solutions (like policies that force broader ownership, not just higher wages!), not submerge ourselves in the two capitalist parties that represent protestantism's economic woes. I couldn't begin to describe what an independent Catholic position--as held always and especially after the Reformation, until we finally managed to melt it away with Vatican II--could do immediately for our social, or economic, situation in the West. The secular state is killing us, though. That state Benedict so serenely marries us to, against the warnings of every pope before him! Minor adjustment?!
No, it's all about this: "It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence..."  Got that? It's about 'human co-existence.' That is exactly what those who finally settled for tolerance in England said,  those "Appellants," those secular priests who sued Rome to please please lighten up on the excommunicating of Elizabeth and so forth,' and they were talking about their own co-existence, and so is Benedict. And this is a theme that has run through the Church ever since, it has not changed, and Vatican II finally made it a principle at the highest level: sell out.  But that is not our way. Our way is the cross and the rack, not a good cigar.
Now I know I really am ranting, but I just can't help but get upset.  I have kids. I love them.  A great mistake, if one wishes to stay calm. I would like them to have a life, in a coherent society, which would be one based on the one Truth. There is no other. Of course we have lost our State, but that does not mean we should have given up our independence! Or changed our doctrine!
And there's this: "The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith."  I wish the Holy Father could find one single martyr who said that! I have looked among dusty volumes this whole summer trying to find one single Elizabethan martyr who died for 'religious freedom.'  Can you name any saint at any period who did so? I mean, and give words they spoke, as opposed to interpreting after the fact?
The fact is, 'religious freedom" causes the mayhem we suffer, and if all the previous popes knew that, why won't Benedict? Because he sure is reaping the whirlwind of it! If you read his writings on homosexuality (they're on the Vatican website--from 1986 and 1995, I think I remember; I have the links on my blog," Holy Smoking Gun" post--he practically designed the homosexual political agenda, he defended their right to be gay so strongly.
Hi Jan B.,

First, I think you misinterpreted my use of the quote from St. Peter Damian. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not using him in relation to "subsistit in" and religious liberty or any kind of change in doctrine. I was merely showing that, in general, in respect to those who who actually do err, a lack of punishment of the erring does not necessarily mean an approval of the error by the supreme authority. Also, simony was not a marginal issue at the time of St. Peter Damian, but one causing much strife and confusion (St. Peter Damian was made a doctor of the Church based on his writings, a great portion of which address this issue). And yes, the teaching that simony is a sin is most certainly a dogma of the faith, revealed in Sacred Scripture. This is why St. Peter Damian called those who taugh otherwise heretics. In fact, when decribing how St. Romuald tried to prove to them otherwise, he noted, "The poison of this heresy was so deep-rooted and so entrenched especially in the episcopal order that such heretics were always full of promises but always put off their execution from day to day, endlessly deferring any decision to the future; indeed it would have been easier to convert a Jew to the faith than to bring one of these heretical scoundrels to true repentance..."

As to the issue of subsistit in, again, the texts from the CDF and those appointed to the doctrinal commission with the SSPX stand as they are. If anyone claims the phrase "subsistit in" means that the Church of Christ also subsists in other communites as well as the Catholic Church they act contrary to the official interpretations. Those that do are of course righly accused of violating the perenniel teaching of the Church.

In regards to religious liberty, the approval of all the evils you list go contrary to the Pope's interpretation of the declaration. Why does he advocate for those things to be made illegal if that is his interpretation?  His interpretation of the declaration seems to be one of a practical and contingent nature. This fact alone does not necessarily violate traditional principles. In his encyclical on the then-new French Republic Pope Leo XIII stated "In descending from the domain of abstractions to that of facts, we must beware of denying the principles: they remain fixed. However, becoming incarnated in facts, they are clothed with a contingent character, determined by the center in which their application is produced."

DH advocates for the state to not coerce men in matters of faith, within the bounds of the common good, while affirming that all are bound to the truth. The broad rights promoted by DH and this Pope as well are intended to be of a contingent nature for particular socieites, especially those such as communist and now Muslim and increasingly hostile Liberal states, as well as those with diverse populations. These practical prescriptions are not above criticism--and I am sure there are many individuals who do abandon the fixed principles of which you rightly condemn listing the relevant authorities--but I personally do not see the fixed principles being exchanged for new ones by the supreme authority (I did think so at one point, until I read commentaries on the19th century condemnations from credible sources contemporary to that time period). No where in the past could the state lawfully obstruct man from freely fulfilling his duties to God and neither could it force him to come to true faith--these have always been contrary to the faith. The martyrs were killed because they could not do this. I do not know of martyrs who died for the authentic liberty of non-Catholics in regards to matters of faith, but there were men who were stricken with excommunication for infringing on them by Popes such as St. Gregory I, Bl. Gregory X, Martin V, and Paul III.

The relatio from Dignitatis Humanae explains its contingent nature in greater detail as well as those principles which are fixed and how the fixed and contingent aspects are related.
http://web.archive.org/web/2007101219233...asp?id=202

A more in depth read on the principles vis a vis the practical application of them in particular socieites from a bishop in the 19th century is here
http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-...art-i.html:
http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/rel...rt-ii.html
http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/rel...t-iii.html
http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2008/07/rel...rt-iv.html