FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bishop Athanasius Schneider discusses Religious Liberty
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I wish I could see the unedited version of this interview. CNS tends to do a hatchet job on interviews when something is said that varies from the USCCB stance.

Well said by His Excellency.
It's good to see that the Bishop is explaining Dignitatis Humanae in a clear manner, and which makes reasonable sense. It would be good to see the longer version, if one exists, but I'm not sure that the context would change - but you never know. I've always felt the the Council was called mainly due to the difficulties and changes wrought from the second world war, and from the rise of atheistic communism.

I think that the Bishop, though, is saying that atheism came from the French Revolution. But I wouldn't have associated atheism as coming from the French Revolution, but rather from Russia, of course. Did the concept of atheism actually start in France?
(01-16-2013, 02:05 PM)Meg Wrote: [ -> ]It's good to see that the Bishop is explaining Dignitatis Humanae in a clear manner, and which makes reasonable sense. It would be good to see the longer version, if one exists, but I'm not sure that the context would change - but you never know. I've always felt the the Council was called mainly due to the difficulties and changes wrought from the second world war, and from the rise of atheistic communism.

I think that the Bishop, though, is saying that atheism came from the French Revolution. But I wouldn't have associated atheism as coming from the French Revolution, but rather from Russia, of course. Did the concept of atheism actually start in France?
I will say atheism, as a state force, started way before the Soviet Union
The good bishop is spot on.

IMHO, if one assumes that the authoritative interpretation of DH excludes indifferentism, then the only remaining problem would be if a theoretical catholic state (using Ottaviani's definition, "a state where the citizens are not only baptized but also profess the catholic faith") would have the right to forbid public acts of worship of false religions (or honest proselytism) which could endanger its religious unity.

It is difficult to imagine such a scenario in our current world but an example could help:

Imagine a small town of... let's say 2,000 inhabitants. Most of them are practicing catholic except for maybe three or four families which are muslims. Now, hundreds of foreign muslims come to the town and plan to have a public prayer in the major square. Would the authorities of this small town have a right to impede such act? The pre-conciliar doctrine would give a positive answer, while DH is silent at best (and negative answer couldn't be discarded a priori).

Another situation:

The same town. A big group of protestant missionaries come to preach their heresies. Would the authorities have the right to say to them "Get the f*** out of our town" and send them where they came from, using force if necessary? Again, the pre-conciliar doctrine would give an affirmative answer, while DH remains silent or could be interpreted so as to give a negative answer.

In any case, catholic states (again, using the definition given by Ottaviani) are something which belong to the past and the doctrine in question most probably doesn't belong to the Deposit of Faith, so I still wonder why there is so much discussion about it...

BTW, hello.
Hi, El Eremita  Smile Welcome!

I'm not sure that I understand your post in the context of what Bp. Schneider. Perhaps you could explain further. Thanks.

The Bishop seems to be saying, IMO, that DH attempts to dialogue with those who have no understanding of the Catholic Faith as being the one true faith (such as atheists). He says:

"Religious liberty in the 20th century in the former Soviet Union was another situation because the society - all society was not Catholic, and was even, I would say, atheistic, without God. And worse, religion itself was prohibited. And in this context, we have to understand religious liberty from the point of view of how I can argue with a government who is atheistic or who is -- not believes in God. So I have to argue with them on the level of reason only, or philosophically, I would say, on the natural level.

And so I cannot say to them, "Oh, you have to accept the Catholic faith because the Catholic faith is the only one true." Of course this is true, but they would not understand this. So I have to argue, "Give us religion, because this is the demand of human dignity." And so what we have in common with an atheist is at least to save the human dignity. At least. Even so, atheism will destroy human dignity, but we have to speak with them at least on this level. And so I understand the intention of the council, of the document."
Hi Meg!

Let me explain myself a little bit... First, we have to see the context: CNS has recently released some videos about the SSPX and now they ask Bp. Schneider (one of the most traditional prelates around) to talk about religious liberty (one of the most controversial topics for traditionalists). As I see it, this is a message to traditionalists: "See? This is one of the good guys and he has no problem with Dignitatis Humanae".

Now, bishop Schneider does not address the whole problem of religious liberty, and that's what my post was about: I was trying to give my insight about which theological difficulties remain even after taking in account what mons. Schneider says.
Thanks for the explanation, El Eremita.  Smile

You're right. The bishop doesn't go into detail about all aspects of religious liberty, but rather, IMO, he's explaining the context in which DH was written, and what it was trying to address. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that his intention was to explain the problems with DH. He's not really the type to do that, though. He knows how far he can go without being contentious.
A little more context is provided here:

http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/...s-liberty/
(01-16-2013, 02:49 PM)El Eremita Wrote: [ -> ]Imagine a small town of... let's say 2,000 inhabitants. Most of them are practicing catholic except for maybe three or four families which are muslims. Now, hundreds of foreign muslims come to the town and plan to have a public prayer in the major square. Would the authorities of this small town have a right to impede such act? The pre-conciliar doctrine would give a positive answer, while DH is silent at best (and negative answer couldn't be discarded a priori). 

I hope you don't mind me comenting on this, I just find the topic of religious liberty really interesting. In particular because of my background as a Pole my historical worldview is quite different from that of a Western European Catholic. For one, even though Roman Catholcicism was the official state religion of the Rzeczpospolita (Republic/Commonwealth), Catholics never made up more than 50% of the population, and so dealing with Jews, Protestants, and Muslims was a common day affair. The response was one of toleration and mutual accord, non-Catholics had equal rights, were free to worship, and could basically do as they pleased. This angered the Church hierarchy however who felt Poland's laws were too lax and needed to curb the rights of its non-Catholic subjects. I must say I am proud to say that the statesmen of my country never followed the ecclesiastical authority's pressure, and instead solidified the policies of toleration through the Warsaw Confederation, and later to be ratified constitutionally in the Henrician Articles which every elected King had to swear allegiance too. My point is that it's very interesting how Catholics from Western parts of Europe look at religious tolerance and liberty. I suppose where Catholicism had a greater monopoly over the population toleration was seen as a threat, but in an already heterogenous society like the Polish-Lithuanian Republic it was absolutely essential. I personally have no problem with concepts like religious liberty and tolerance, and I think from my perspective these concepts are fully compatible with my Catholic identiy and worldview. The world we live in today is much more like the Polish Republic of the past than the French Kingdom, and maybe there are some good things to be meditated over from the former, since Catholics have already dealt with these issues in the past.

Anway, just my two cents.

God bless
Pages: 1 2 3