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
I think the word "right" is problematic. We may freely choose to be wrong, but it really isn't a "right" per say, because ultimately we will suffer the consequences if we choose the wrong thing.
We've established that the only restraint DH permits a government are those of public peace. No liberal of the type universally understood to be condemned under preconciliar doctrine would oppose such a restriction. Even contemporary liberals pursue such restrictions; the American state frequently investigates and limits the activity of black nationalist Muslim sects and white supremacist Christian sects despite their religious veneer. This is distinction without difference.

Re: "coercion," I think this betrays the really narrow limits this sort of thinking puts on discussion. No one here is advocating forcible baptism or enforcement of religious practice. To condemn that does pretty obviously condemn that which the Church once approved, and so makes it highly suspect as a teaching of a "doctrinal" level. But to return to the idea of coercion, how do we define the limits of "coercion?" Society is not a sea of unrelated individual actors in a relationship with the state. Is it coercion for communities reserve public television channels for Catholic teaching? Would it be coercion for communities to only permit Catholic iconography on public properties? Who is being coerced? Would it be coercion for the legislature to set a higher number of immigration quotas from Catholic countries? I am concerned that proponents of the maximalist reading of DH have uncritically bought into the liberal myth of state neutrality.

If we understand coercion as actual forced change of an individual's religious practice from the one to another, I think not many people here would have a problem with such an understanding of DH. However, I suspect that is not what the author of the book you mentioned, nor the authors of DH, had in mind.
Note also that this group is one of the foremost out against the HHS mandate. Here is a gist of their stance. Also note, obviously, that they are talking to the average Joe, and not a specifically Catholic audience.

Here's a series of videos from a symposium on this topic. I think it is very interesting from what I've watched so far.

http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/even...us-liberty

I'm on this one first:

(11-22-2012, 12:57 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Note also that this group is one of the foremost out against the HHS mandate. Here is a gist of their stance. Also note, obviously, that they are talking to the average Joe, and not a specifically Catholic audience.


It takes less than 15 seconds for the narrator to utter his first (of which I am sure there are many more) heresy...  Not worth six minutes of my time.
Only in these times of crisis can the idea of becoming fettered to damnable, false religions be considered a freedom!
(11-22-2012, 01:32 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-22-2012, 12:57 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Note also that this group is one of the foremost out against the HHS mandate. Here is a gist of their stance. Also note, obviously, that they are talking to the average Joe, and not a specifically Catholic audience.


It takes less than 15 seconds for the narrator to utter his first (of which I am sure there are many more) heresy...  Not worth six minutes of my time.

That was a pretty sickening heresy. American before Catholic...
When I see the dismantling of Catholic States in the name of DH, that tells me that there is a problem with the document. E.g. Salazar's Portugal, Franco's Spain

On another note, a book you should get your hands on is Conflict and Consensus: Religious Freedom and The Second Vatican Council by Richard Regan, S.J. who worked from the notes of Fr. John Courtney Murray. What DH clearly avoided was the teaching of the Church regarding Religious Toleration championed by Cardinal Ottaviani and other Council Fathers.

Here is one choice quote from the book:

Quote:The primacy which American bishop accorded a conciliar statement on religious freedom amused many Europeans, who, understanding the nineteenth-century polemic against Jacobin democracy and sectarian liberalism, attached less importance to such a statement. As already indicated, however, the reasons for concern were real enough. American Catholics, who identified themselves with their country's authorship of the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, had experienced a more bitter questioning of the Church's relation to religious freedom by non-Catholics than had Catholics elsewhere. It is also noteworthy that the main opposition to the Declaration on Religious Freedom came from the bishops of a nation committed to the paternal organization of society, showing that the basic issue posed by the Declaration on Religious Freedom was not simply religious freedom but freedom simply.

p. 10
(11-22-2012, 01:12 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a series of videos from a symposium on this topic. I think it is very interesting from what I've watched so far.

http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/even...us-liberty

I'm on this one first:


"The great American Jesuit John Courtney Murray, who contributed himself so much to Dignitatis..." - 1:02.   :puke:

I can already see where this video is going... anyway, I'll try to make time for it later this evening.

Indeed, Phillipus, indeed.

Anyway, I'll simply point out once again that "freedom from coercion" is not the same thing as "freedom to profess error."  Man has a right to the former, but not to the latter.
It is a negative and positive formulation. Negative: from coercion. Positive: of religion.
Pages: 1 2 3 4