FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Recent Synod enshrines Religious Liberty
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Source: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/10...f.html?m=1

"Proposition 16 : RELIGIOUS LIBERTY


The Synod Fathers reaffirm that religious freedom is a basic human right. This includes the freedom of conscience and also the liberty to freely choose one’s religion. We are in solidarity with our brothers and sisters, in different parts of the world, who are suffering from lack of religious freedom and even persecution.

In light of the recognition of the Second Vatican Council as an instrument for the New Evangelization and the growing need to protect the religious liberty of Christians throughout the world, the Synod Fathers propose a renewed commitment to and wider diffusion of the teachings of Dignitatis Humanae. This renewal seeks to affirm and promote freedom in religious matters for individuals, families and institutions to protect the common good of all. Such a freedom includes the right to teach the Christian faith without compromise of its tenets to children in the family and/or school.

The Synod Fathers propose that the Holy Father consider the opportuneness of establishing a commission of Church leaders representing various parts of the Church throughout the world or entrusting this task to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, to address attacks on religious liberty, and to obtain accurate information for public witness to the fundamental right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience."

The revolution continues.
"The Synod Fathers reaffirm that religious freedom is a basic human right.  This includes the freedom of conscience and also the liberty to freely choose one’s religion."

The above is erroneous, as it doesn't teach that religious liberty is the freedom to profess the true religion alone.  It is even erroneous in light of the new Catechism, which plainly states, "The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error" (n. 2108.).
I think you all are really overthinking this one. 

They are saying:  All human beings have a right to believe and exercise that belief. 

My understanding of that:  People should not be forced to follow a religion or no religion at all because of the views of the state.  Nor should people be subject to physical coercion in this matter.  Given the persecution of Christians the world over, this isn't an outlandish statement.   

Why do I see it this way?  Well, God gives us all free will: the ability to accept Him in our lives or turn from Him.  Essentially, the freedom to sin has always been a God-given right.  This is just a very specific statement of our right framed within the context of religious liberty.  Man may believe as he wills; it doesn't mean that belief is correct or that he will get into heaven by doing so.  In no way does a right to religious liberty excuse man from the obligation to believe correctly.  It just means that he should be allowed to believe as he chooses and not have his beliefs dictated to him. 

Think about it this way.  Just because you hog tie someone and beat them until they say they believe in God's one true Church doesn't mean they really believe it.  Coercion and forced belief are nothing but lip service.  The Spanish Inquisition faced this issue head on in terms of conversos - those who were forced to convert from their Jewish faith or leave Spain.  Many conversos continued to practice their Jewish faith in secret and the inquisition sought out these false converts and punish them.  St. Teresa of Avila discusses this in her own family.  She was questioned repeatedly about whether or not her family owned special shabbat dishes and other items tied to the Jewish faith.  Likewise, when she traveled and stayed with others, she was questioned as to whether or not she saw these same items in other households.  The issue the Spanish Inquisition was confronting was this: Jews had been forced to convert to Catholicism and had done so - if only in terms of public worship.  Can we make windows into men's souls?  Of course not, but they sure tried. 
>sad What backwards and uneducated modernist thinking. If it is man's right, which would be God given, to rebel against God than the punishment of the fall would be unjust.


ab hómine iníquo et dolóso érue me. Pray

Wait one darn minute! 

If we are to love God, then we must choose Him freely.  That means that just as freely, we can reject Him.  That isn't precisely "modernish" thinking. 

St. Augustine said, “Now He has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free choice of will. But how He has revealed this I do not recount in human language, but in divine. There is, to begin with, the fact that God's precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards. For they are given that no one might be able to plead the excuse of ignorance, as the Lord says concerning the Jews in the gospel: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. John 15:22” (New Advent)  Cliff Notes Version: It is in choosing to do God's will that we find salvation. This assumes that man must choose to follow God - aka believe in him and follow His commandments.

And Augustine says again later: “When God says, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,” Zechariah 1:3 one of these clauses— that which invites our return to God— evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. . . .  [large portion removed on the Palagians] unless our turning to God were itself God's gift, it would not be said to Him in prayer, Turn us again, O God of hosts; and, You, O God, wilt turn and quicken us; and again, Turn us, O God of our salvation, — with other passages of similar import, too numerous to mention here. For, with respect to our coming unto Christ, what else does it mean than our being turned to Him by believing? And yet He says: No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. John 6:65” (New Advent)  Cliff Notes Version:  Our free will - our ability both to sin and to turn toward God are both God's gift.  He allows us to choose freely.

It's not modern thought.  It's straight from Retractions (c. 426-427).
Modernish?  Unless your standard for modern is very strange indeed, you may want to rethink this one.
We can all choose to reject God and the true Faith, but no one has a right to. Arguing as such would be as absurd as saying man has a right to commit murder, or use artificial contraception. Saying man has a right to religious liberty is just as ridiculous.
(10-30-2012, 02:08 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: [ -> ]Wait one darn minute! 

If we are to love God, then we must choose Him freely.  That means that just as freely, we can reject Him.  That isn't precisely "modernish" thinking. 

St. Augustine said, “Now He has revealed to us, through His Holy Scriptures, that there is in a man a free choice of will. But how He has revealed this I do not recount in human language, but in divine. There is, to begin with, the fact that God's precepts themselves would be of no use to a man unless he had free choice of will, so that by performing them he might obtain the promised rewards. For they are given that no one might be able to plead the excuse of ignorance, as the Lord says concerning the Jews in the gospel: If I had not come and spoken unto them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. John 15:22” (New Advent)  Cliff Notes Version: It is in choosing to do God's will that we find salvation. This assumes that man must choose to follow God - aka believe in him and follow His commandments.

And Augustine says again later: “When God says, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,” Zechariah 1:3 one of these clauses— that which invites our return to God— evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. . . .  [large portion removed on the Palagians] unless our turning to God were itself God's gift, it would not be said to Him in prayer, Turn us again, O God of hosts; and, You, O God, wilt turn and quicken us; and again, Turn us, O God of our salvation, — with other passages of similar import, too numerous to mention here. For, with respect to our coming unto Christ, what else does it mean than our being turned to Him by believing? And yet He says: No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. John 6:65” (New Advent)  Cliff Notes Version:  Our free will - our ability both to sin and to turn toward God are both God's gift.  He allows us to choose freely.

It's not modern thought.  It's straight from Retractions (c. 426-427).
Modernish?  Unless your standard for modern is very strange indeed, you may want to rethink this one.

Was not directed at you, but the absurdity of the synod.

As Phillipus, this is about the word usage of "rights" not free will. But remember, to turn to God freely is only by His Grace and Will working through us to turn to Him. So the freedom of will exercised to do His Will, is His Will and is the height of true freedom since this breaks us from the bondage of sin and uplifts us in the Trinitarian Life.
From my post on a previous thread:

"True freedom of conscience is given to us, namely, the right to embrace and to profess the true religion according to the laws laid upon us by God or by an authority set up by God.  But absolute freedom of conscience must be rejected, that is, the right to choose a religion which is more pleasing, or the right to decide on a religion according to the sole light of the individual's reason. . . . the Roman Pontiffs do not absolutely condemn these freedoms [of conscience and of worship]; but they do forbid that these liberties be considered as rights which must be granted to error or to false religion" (Very Rev. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. I, n. 280f., p. 166ff.).

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...3445203.10
(10-30-2012, 02:17 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: [ -> ]We can all choose to reject God and the true Faith, but no one has a right to. Arguing as such would be as absurd as saying man has a right to commit murder, or use artificial contraception. Saying man has a right to religious liberty is just as ridiculous.

Yes. This american version of freedom (of religion) supposes that ability=entitlement. Or un otherwords 'if I CAN dou, I have a RIGHT to do it'  which as u demonstrate is false and illogical. 

From phone
(10-30-2012, 02:17 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: [ -> ]We can all choose to reject God and the true Faith, but no one has a right to. Arguing as such would be as absurd as saying man has a right to commit murder, or use artificial contraception. Saying man has a right to religious liberty is just as ridiculous.

So, what term would you use instead of right? 
Pages: 1 2 3 4