FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Dignitatis Humanae / 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
(11-21-2012, 04:53 PM)Cordobes Wrote: [ -> ]I see. We have been using different definitions, that's the trouble. Well an internal restriction is well and good but it does not have any effect on questions of public governance and social order, which is what DH purports to do.

It would have nothing to do with it if we were only internal creatures. We're not.

Let me ask you a question. If we are supposed to be free to come to God, and going against our conscience is a sin, excepting problems of public order, how does the state get the right to coerce people to go against their consciences? Does it have any other concomitant rights to coerce people to sin?
DH Wrote:This Vatican Synod 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 social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.

Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

[...]

The Synod 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.

Compare this to what the American Ecclesiastical Review said in 1964:
Connell, AER, No.151, February 1964, p. 128. Wrote:Some have tried to argue that while error has no rights, persons inculpably holding erroneous doctrines have the right to hold them. But it must be borne in mind that error can be believed, spread, and activated only by persons and so it is difficult to see what it would mean to say "error has no right to be spread" if one held at the same time "persons can have a right to spread error"- that is if "right" be taken in the same sense in both statements. ...How can one have a genuine right to believe, spread, or practice what is objectively false or morally wrong? For a genuine right is based on what is objectively true and good.

Pavan, in the Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, said:
H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, IV, p.65 Wrote:the right to religious freedom must be regarded as a fundamental right of the human person or as a natural right, that is one grounded in the very nature of man (Ed.,emphasis in original), as the Declaration itself repeats several times.

Compare this to what Connell said in the AER in 1943:
AER, No.109, October 1943, p. 255 Wrote:Beyond doubt, the expression "freedom- of worship " is ordinarily understood by our non-Catholic fellow-citizens, when they advocate the "four freedoms,” in the sense that every one has a natural God-given right to accept and to practice whatever form of religion appeals to him individually. No Catholic can in conscience defend such an idea of freedom of religious worship. For, according to Catholic principles, the only religion that has a right to exist is the religion that God revealed and made obligatory on all men; hence, man has a natural and God-given freedom to embrace only the true religion. One who sincerely believes himself bound to practice some form of non-Catholic religion is in conscience obliged to do so; but this subjective obligation, based on an erroneous conscience, does not give him a genuine right. A real right is something objective based on truth. Accordingly, a Catholic may not defend freedom of religious worship to the extent of denying that a Catholic government has the right, absolutely speaking, to restrict the activities of non-Catholic denominations in order to protect the Catholic citizens from spiritual harm.
Dignitatis Humanae, 2 Wrote:This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. This is to become a civil right.

Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864 Wrote:Contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers, these persons do not hesitate to assert that "the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the government of correcting, by enacted penalties, the violators of the Catholic religion, except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it." From this totally false notion of social government, they fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI (lately quoted) the insanity (deliramentum): namely, "that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty, to be restrained by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press, or by any other means."
The right specifically is a right to be free from coercion, which is translated into a right of religious freedom that flows from that. Address the question I asked above.
(11-21-2012, 05:11 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]The right specifically is a right to be free from coercion, which is translated into a right of religious freedom that flows from that. Address the question I asked above.

AER, No.109, October 1943, p. 255 Wrote:For, according to Catholic principles, the only religion that has a right to exist is the religion that God revealed and made obligatory on all men; hence, man has a natural and God-given freedom to embrace only the true religion. One who sincerely believes himself bound to practice some form of non-Catholic religion is in conscience obliged to do so; but this subjective obligation, based on an erroneous conscience, does not give him a genuine right. A real right is something objective based on truth. Accordingly, a Catholic may not defend freedom of religious worship to the extent of denying that a Catholic government has the right, absolutely speaking, to restrict the activities of non-Catholic denominations in order to protect the Catholic citizens from spiritual harm.

AER, No.151, February 1964, p. 128. Wrote:Some have tried to argue that while error has no rights, persons inculpably holding erroneous doctrines have the right to hold them. But it must be borne in mind that error can be believed, spread, and activated only by persons and so it is difficult to see what it would mean to say "error has no right to be spread" if one held at the same time "persons can have a right to spread error"- that is if "right" be taken in the same sense in both statements. ...How can one have a genuine right to believe, spread, or practice what is objectively false or morally wrong? For a genuine right is based on what is objectively true and good.
Ah...the triumph of Fr. John Courtney Murray, the architect of Dignitatis Humanae, over Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton.
(11-21-2012, 06:27 PM)obscurus Wrote: [ -> ]Ah...the triumph of Fr. John Courtney Murray, the architect of Dignitatis Humanae, over Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton.

By the way, excellent quotes Phillipus.

AER, No.109, October 1943, p. 255 Wrote:One who sincerely believes himself bound to practice some form of non-Catholic religion is in conscience obliged to do so; but this subjective obligation, based on an erroneous conscience, does not give him a genuine right. A real right is something objective based on truth.

This writer holds that the right would emanate from one's conscience, but it rather emanates from our nature as beings created in the likeness and image of God. This is an objective truth. It is also an objective truth that we have a duty to come to God freely. This duty cannot be negated by an erroneous conscience. Because of our nature, and because of this duty, our search for truth and our adherance to it must be through reason and conviction, not by force or violence. Furthermore, because our consciences are formed only by our own contemplation of evidence, and not the dictates of other men's consciences, the right is inalienable. And lastly, since this duty of man to God precedes the State both in time and in degree of obligation, the claims of civil society may not negate it, provided he is not upsetting the public order. This is a real foundation in objective truth.

AER, No.151, February 1964, p. 128 Wrote:How can one have a genuine right to believe, spread, or practice what is objectively false or morally wrong? For a genuine right is based on what is objectively true and good.

They have a genuine right to come to God freely, and in that freedom they may err. That erring does not negate the freedom, though. Why? Because even though their erroneous conscience is indeed erroneous, it hasn't blotted our their nature as beings created in the likeness and image of God. We are rational public creatures, who thirst for truth and knowledge. Coercion is more fitting for molding behavior of animals, not bringing souls to Christ.



So I ask again: If we are supposed to be free to come to God, and going against our conscience is a sin, excepting problems of public order, how does the state get the right to coerce people to go against their consciences? Does it have any other concomitant rights to coerce people to sin?

When does our Lord teach that man comes to Him through violence and coercion? Where does He state that this is the job of the civil government?
(11-21-2012, 05:11 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]The right specifically is a right to be free from coercion, which is translated into a right of religious freedom that flows from that. Address the question I asked above.

Even if you interpret Dignitatis Humanae as giving a right to freedom from coercion, that is still a negative right to religious liberty, and still falls under the condemnations.
Which condemnation?

Also notice how the argument is against unrestrained liberties!
Pages: 1 2 3 4