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
(11-22-2012, 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:


Very interesting. Thank you!

I got up to 30 minutes, but one important point I don't think was addressed  (but alluded to by Prof. Bradley ) is the treatment of those who are baptized.

It's dogma, --professed by the Council of Trent, and still within the current Code of Canon Law-- that the Church has the power to coerce the baptized. Reconciling that with DH is often overlooked even by traditionalists.


(11-22-2012, 01:32 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It isn't a heresy, especially if we simply rephrase it. It is simply stating that the rights we get from God is from a God that can be know by anyone by the light of reason alone, and not through the religious faiths listed. So there is no heresy there. Especially this is the case when we are talking about rights which relate to all men, and not just men of a particular religion.
(11-22-2012, 04:57 PM)romanaround Wrote: [ -> ]I got up to 30 minutes, but one important point I don't think was addressed  (but alluded to by Prof. Bradley ) is the treatment of those who are baptized.

It's dogma, --professed by the Council of Trent, and still within the current Code of Canon Law-- that the Church has the power to coerce the baptized. Reconciling that with DH is often overlooked even by traditionalists.

If you go up to 30 minutes, then you heard the critique of coercion of people who want to leave the Faith. The burnings, etc., of heretics. That's discussed, or maybe that is what you mean by allusion. I guess it isn't gone into much.
We should define a few of the various terms and ideas in this discussion:

(1) What is the Catholic definition of liberty?
(2) What is the role of the State with regard to the true religion (e.g. the Catholic faith)?
(3) What is religious toleration?
(4) Did "Catholic States", in other words, Catholicism being the official religion enjoying privileges from the State, able to repress certain erroneous ideas? Or did the Catholic State overstep its boundaries when it did so?
(5) What does it mean when it is said that man has an innate dignity? Whence does this dignity come from?
(6) Can it be proven categorically that DH is in line with Tradition and if so that its rejection is tantamount to denying Catholic doctrine? What level of assent must a Catholic give to DH?

Edited
Also something to keep in mind was that this was a legitimacy issue in Vatican II. We were rightly seen as hypocritical because we complained when our freedoms were trampled upon, but then once we got power we turned around and trampled on other people. We were seen as a dishonest participator in humanity.

The argument made in the video is that the Church is reasserting a more ancient teaching from before the wedding of church and state since Constantine. That the state never had real power to do what they did. That's the biggest question. Where does this thing called the state get the right to force religion into society or out of it? Is this state also able to enslave people who are innocent of crimes? Sell them? Is part of the Social Kingship of Christ restoring the enslavement of others? What other modern "rights" are up for being diminished in this question to force our religion into other people's lives?
(11-22-2012, 05:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-22-2012, 01:32 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It isn't a heresy, especially if we simply rephrase it. It is simply stating that the rights we get from God is from a God that can be know by anyone by the light of reason alone, and not through the religious faiths listed. So there is no heresy there. Especially this is the case when we are talking about rights which relate to all men, and not just men of a particular religion.

The video is scandalously heretical, and even blasphemous. The narrator proudfully boasts that the Declaration of Independence "rightfully" proclaims rights from "Nature's God, not a Hebrew God, a Christian God, or a Muslim God."

This is blasphemy and errenous. "God" is whatever a "believer" wants.

It then continues, and the narrator states that a government not only protects "believers" (which could be anyone, even a Satanist or pagan), but non believers.
(11-22-2012, 05:28 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-22-2012, 05:01 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-22-2012, 01:32 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]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.

It isn't a heresy, especially if we simply rephrase it. It is simply stating that the rights we get from God is from a God that can be know by anyone by the light of reason alone, and not through the religious faiths listed. So there is no heresy there. Especially this is the case when we are talking about rights which relate to all men, and not just men of a particular religion.

The video is scandalously heretical, and even blasphemous. The narrator proudfully boasts that the Declaration of Independence "rightfully" proclaims rights from "Nature's God, not a Hebrew God, a Christian God, or a Muslim God."

This is blasphemy and errenous. "God" is whatever a "believer" wants.

It then continues, and the narrator states that a government not only protects "believers" (which could be anyone, even a Satanist or pagan), but non believers.

I think you are reading what you want into it. "... our rights are derived from nature's God, not a Christian, Hebrew, or Muslim God, but nature's God. Thankfully, our natural rights ..." The reference is to natural rights. Rights which come to us because of who we are, not because we belong to a religion. The point is that these rights are related to our nature, not to our membership in a religion. Does our membership in a religion govern our rights of life and pursuit of happiness? So it is plainly pointing something related to our nature, and also to a God whom can be know by the light of reason, which any man can do, as taught by St Paul and Vatican I. It isn't denying that nature's God is the Christian God per se, but that our rights come from God known through nature. You're just trying to find something to nit-pick at. It is plain that is what they are saying.

Pages: 1 2 3 4