Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-23-2009, 11:11 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-23-2009, 09:13 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-22-2009, 06:09 PM)newschoolman Wrote: One has a moral RIGHT to fulfill his moral DUTIES.  In other words, when an erring conscience BINDS then one has a moral RIGHT to obey it.  One has a RIGHT not to SIN.  There is nothing in your selected quote that suggests anything to the contrary.  It is not a so-called "right to error" -- but a RIGHT to obey a certain conscience that binds under pain of sin -- in spite of honest error.

And the civil authority has a right to supress religious error. They are required to tolerate these errors when the natural law or the common good is at stake. DH says the civil authorities must tolerate religious error.

You and I must follow a certain conscience. We are certain as to how we should act and we must follow through. This cannot mean that the civil authority cannot stop us if we are objectively wrong. The rights of a good (properly formed) conscience are superior to a bad conscience (improperly formed).

Yes, the civil authorities have the duty and right to repress error when the common good is at stake (e.g., violations of natural moral law).  But there is no right to repress religious error that does not violate natural moral law and the common good.  See Suarez.... 

“As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate them…The reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.” (Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III, n. 10)

You and I must follow a certain conscience (to avoid sin). We are certain as to how we should act and we must follow through. This cannot mean that the civil authority cannot stop us if we are objectively wrong. The rights of a good (properly formed) conscience are superior to a bad conscience (improperly formed).

Here's a quote on "Error has no rights" from a post V2 reference book: after correctly explaining the phrase, viz. the rights of a sincere but erroneous conscience are in no wise equal to the rights of sincere and correct conscience, it succinctly says, "The Second Vatican Council rejected this thinking in its Declaration on Religious Freedom (n.3)."

Of course, other related articles are long hymns of praise to the heretic John Courtney Murray.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by lamentabili sane - 06-23-2009, 01:50 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)