Dignitatis Humanae and Gay "rights"
#11
(05-17-2009, 12:26 AM)didishroom Wrote: 1.) Marriage is not a right, IMO
2.) Even if it were, gays can get married.
3.) Any gay man can marry a woman and any lesbian can marry a man.

Isn't a homosexual disposition considered an impediment to a valid marriage?
Reply
#12
Only if the person was aware of it but didn't tell the other spouse prior to marriage.

I believe St. Jerome even mentioned homosexuals when discussing divorce and remarriage and said something like(paraphrasing here) "I don't care if he's a sodomite, she can't leave him and marry another." 

Reply
#13
What's the obsession w/ Vatican II anyway??? Never mind people who haven't read any of it and think it's the only [relevant] thing the Church has done to date; it isn't.  Neither is HH B XVI's upcoming encyclical on whatever the only thing the Church has to say about, well, anything, really.  Those who know, know that the Church's teaching should be taken *as a whole* and *with the mind of the Church*, and all that.  If anyone did that, it would be impossible to "read V-II" or live in the "spirit of V-II" and also stray from sacred tradition, because the latter is effectively prerequisite to understand the former, right???  So why do people keep complaining about V-II ?  IT didn't change anything apart from maybe amplifying various things the Church has already understood and taught *since the first pentecost*.

The trouble isn't V-II, nor "aggiornamenti", nor --- you know --- the church generally doing what it's supposed to do.  Any problems are, as we all ought to know, the fruits of sin, whether sloth ("I don't *wanna* read all those patristics") or pride ("I don't *have* to read patristics! I *KNOW IT ALL* myself!") or envy ("No you shan't read those patristics and make yourself better-informed than me!") or wrath ("I've had it with those Church `fathers'; I'll show THEM what I can do to Church teaching")  or whatever. I can't think of "lust", "gluttony" or "greed" examples, but  shouldn't be necessary, anyways.

So, what's up with that, eh?

... sed nomini tuo da gloriam
Reply
#14
What's up with that is that there are a lot of heterodox people doing nutty things, pointing to V2, and saying "The Church said this is OK." while at the same time there is little from Rome that says "No, it didn't say that"
Reply
#15
(05-17-2009, 12:12 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:DH enshrines a flowery, sacred "right" for anti-Catholics to attack the church

Prove it by quoting the section or sections where DH states that any religion or atheists have a right to attack any other religion.  In fact, I hold it states the opposite.  It states that people can practice any religion without any type of restriction (for all practical purposes).
Dignitatis Humanae Wrote:A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man,(1) and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty.

Do whatever you want or don't do what you don't want. Nobody can force you.
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:while it demands Catholics make no"encroachment" on that alleged right by fighting back.

It does not say that at all.  If it does, and I'm mistaken, please quote it.

First, as stated above, it doesn't make a statement about a right to attack.  Second, it doesn't say anywhere that Catholics cannot fight back if attacked.

Dignitatis Humanae Wrote:The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations.

Objectively, Catholic authorities are unconditionally bound here not to encroach on the anyone's freedom. By deduction, non-Catholics may continue encroaching on Catholics since this document is not binding for them and there is no mention of enforcing reciprocation.

Supposedly this portion is moot because there are no more Catholic states (thanks to revolutions by church enemies the last few states secularized off by Paul VI) but if these broad principals would apply to the Catholic state, they would readily apply to any government structure such as those in schools, corporations, localities, neighborhood committees, and even families and the Church government itself. Church government is overrun to the extent that, arguably, the vast majority of offices are filled by latea sentae excommunicate heretics and reprobates.
Dignitatis Humanae Wrote:This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.[...]

This Vatican Council 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 of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council 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.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.[...]

[Men] enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

The exaltation of man's freedom and his "quest for the values proper to the human spirit" echos the abstract principles of freemasonry. Catholics are burdened with a new religious duty to respect the religious freedom of everyone as a profound absolute.  "Everyone" would include anti-Catholics who fanatically fight to destroy the Church without the DH obligation to respect the "immunity from external coercionr" or any moral restriction beyond that of their own false creed. If anti-Catholics shape their attack as religious and do not openly transgress the public order, Catholics are forbidden by DH to fight back in any way that would impede the supposed religious right of anti-Catholics to attack the Church. DH hijacks the authority of the Church to forbid its defense.
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:DH demands Catholics throw down the sword of truth and the shield of faith while the hostile competitive religions of Judaism and Islam make no such concession (mainline Protestants similarly disarmed but they evaporated and were replaced by Fundamentalists that have not).

On the contrary, it calls for all religions to throw down their attacks on any other religion.  And that's the problem with it: it opens the way to indifferentism.

Calls by Vatican II to stop attacks are obeyed only by Catholics and a few Mainstream sects. Catholics and these sects have become indifferentist because DH is a call for indifferentism. Everybody else keeps on punching (at least covertly) while we and a few other suckers stand down our defenses. Jews, Muslims, and Fundamentalists are eating us alive to the degree that our civilization appears headed for extinction, unless we rapidly turn it around. (I consider this last point a truism and beyond the scope of debate in this thread. There is plenty of evidence available on other threads.)
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:Is there any section of DH that does not reek of adolescent wind-baggery and obsequious deference to false religions that will never reciprocate?

Rhethoric aside, you're assuming that 1) you're correct, and 2) people read the same things as you do.  Really, my biggest fear is that false religions will reciprocate because then humanity just doesn't give a flying crap anymore about the truth.  When people argue, at least sometimes, they are arguing over the truth which means they seek it.  If they seek it, they have a chance of finding it.

Yes, precisely. If false religions reciprocate, they will have given up, just like DH-obeying Catholics. Mainstream Protestants have reciprocated and have almost dried up and blown away. If we still valued our Faith, we would never exalt the ill-defined, naturalist abstraction of "freedom" over the interests of Holy Mother Church as DH "demands". Experience proves that no serious creed is willing to reciprocate DH. When Catholics become serious again, we will throw out DH for the sake of our survival and the Church's defense.
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote: I see the current flagrant public immorality and church censorship as just part of the inevitable downward spiral that will continue until Catholics can again defend the Church against her sworn enemies.

I can see pink elephants.  It doesn't mean they exist, and if I want others to believe they exist, I have to point them out.  Or at least piles of pink elephant dung that proves they exist.

I have demonstrated that DH enforces the one-sided disarmament of Church defenders, robs Catholics of courage, and castrates her sons making them little better than Episcopalians. That is why the elites laugh at Catholics with public "art" like Piss Christ and Dung Mary while they are still too afraid to blaspheme Mohamed. These articles show how the right of "freedom" and "immunity" and the prohibition of coercion and encroachment has led to license:

http://americansfortruth.com/news/more-s...gence.html

http://americansfortruth.com/homosexual-...-2007.html

This article lists the corrupt Chicago-insider Obama-backers who now run Notre Dame as its Board of Trustees since Catholic Universities transferred out of Church for the sake of academic "freedom":
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/ar...rcID=48163

Notre Dame bows to a president who strongly supports abortion and imposed hate speech laws outlawing the Gospel.
These links serve as more elephant dung marking passage of the "freedom" and "disarmament" imposed by Vatican II.
Reply
#16
Columbia,  I have not read all that's going on here because I don't have time and really don't care (bc anything to do with V2 at this point for me is not worth arguing over too much - did so much of it for years), but I think your onto something.  Just wanted you to know you have a supporter of sorts but I probablly won't jump in.  A lot of people here like so say "separate the hijacking and unsanctioned errors from the Council and the aftermath.  I for one do not see how you can.

Some folks here, like Unnamed-poster-who-likes-to-start-arguments-on-the-welcome-board, (and others, some of who are pretty well thought out) will tell you that V2 and ALL it's documents, and the documents issued by post concilliar Popes need to be read in the light of Tradition.  Well this goes without saying.  All document issued by the vatican or any Church authority need to have that, but the premise is that it can be done with some ease.  In many cases it can be done, not all.  and the real problem is that all V2 docs are able to be read outside the light of Traditon because they are purposely vague.  Vaguery is a special charism of the Council fathers.

This vagueness is special to this Council and all that follows.  Have you ever tried to read anything by JP2.  It's hysterical.  In fact it's so messed up there is a "random JP2 quote generator" on FE: http://www.fisheaters.com/jpiispeech.html.  I know ther generator is all in good fun but it hits on something real...that is why it is funny.

Don't be to distraught by what you see others post and don't for a second think your alone in your assessment, lots of folks here that think the way you do just don't post about it.
Reply
#17
(05-17-2009, 08:07 PM)columba Wrote:
(05-17-2009, 12:12 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:DH enshrines a flowery, sacred "right" for anti-Catholics to attack the church

Prove it by quoting the section or sections where DH states that any religion or atheists have a right to attack any other religion.  In fact, I hold it states the opposite.  It states that people can practice any religion without any type of restriction (for all practical purposes).
Dignitatis Humanae Wrote:A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man,(1) and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty.

Do whatever you want or don't do what you don't want. Nobody can force you.

"The demand is increasingly made that"  - It says that the demand is increasingly made, not that the Church gives its OK on such a demand.

Quote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:while it demands Catholics make no"encroachment" on that alleged right by fighting back.

It does not say that at all.  If it does, and I'm mistaken, please quote it.

First, as stated above, it doesn't make a statement about a right to attack.  Second, it doesn't say anywhere that Catholics cannot fight back if attacked.

Dignitatis Humanae Wrote:The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations.

Objectively, Catholic authorities are unconditionally bound here not to encroach on the anyone's freedom. By deduction, non-Catholics may continue encroaching on Catholics since this document is not binding for them and there is no mention of enforcing reciprocation.

Again, it says "the demand is made".  The document is just stating what the contemporary (to the Council) demand of society is.  Only after this does the Council comment by saying:

"This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice."

It says it notes them and says they are "greatly in accord" not "completely in accord".  Then and only then does the council give its mind on the matter.  So, you're calling an observation a teaching of the council.  We can throw this much out right now.

Quote:Supposedly this portion is moot because there are no more Catholic states (thanks to revolutions by church enemies the last few states secularized off by Paul VI) but if these broad principals would apply to the Catholic state, they would readily apply to any government structure such as those in schools, corporations, localities, neighborhood committees, and even families and the Church government itself. Church government is overrun to the extent that, arguably, the vast majority of offices are filled by latea sentae excommunicate heretics and reprobates.

This portion is moot because it is not a teaching or instruction, pastoral or otherwise.  It's a statement of observation.

Quote:
Dignitatis Humanae Wrote:This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.[...]

This Vatican Council 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 of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council 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.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.[...]

[Men] enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

The exaltation of man's freedom and his "quest for the values proper to the human spirit" echos the abstract principles of freemasonry. Catholics are burdened with a new religious duty to respect the religious freedom of everyone as a profound absolute.  "Everyone" would include anti-Catholics who fanatically fight to destroy the Church without the DH obligation to respect the "immunity from external coercionr" or any moral restriction beyond that of their own false creed. If anti-Catholics shape their attack as religious and do not openly transgress the public order, Catholics are forbidden by DH to fight back in any way that would impede the supposed religious right of anti-Catholics to attack the Church. DH hijacks the authority of the Church to forbid its defense.

Yeah, I'm not big on what this says either.  However, it does not say the Church cannot defend itself.  You are making a statement that isn't there.  It says people cannot be coerced to religious belief - it does not say that one cannot defend one's self against coercion, Catholics included.  The 10 Commandments say we can't steal, but they don't say we can't defend ourselves against theft, or be witnesses in a court of law against theft.

So, you have nothing there.

Quote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:DH demands Catholics throw down the sword of truth and the shield of faith while the hostile competitive religions of Judaism and Islam make no such concession (mainline Protestants similarly disarmed but they evaporated and were replaced by Fundamentalists that have not).

On the contrary, it calls for all religions to throw down their attacks on any other religion.  And that's the problem with it: it opens the way to indifferentism.

Calls by Vatican II to stop attacks are obeyed only by Catholics and a few Mainstream sects. Catholics and these sects have become indifferentist because DH is a call for indifferentism. Everybody else keeps on punching (at least covertly) while we and a few other suckers stand down our defenses. Jews, Muslims, and Fundamentalists are eating us alive to the degree that our civilization appears headed for extinction, unless we rapidly turn it around. (I consider this last point a truism and beyond the scope of debate in this thread. There is plenty of evidence available on other threads.)

A call to stop an attack is much different than a call to stop defense.  There is no call to stop defense there.  Again, going to the 10 Commandments, Thou shalt not murder is much different than thou shalt not stop murder.


Quote:.
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote: I see the current flagrant public immorality and church censorship as just part of the inevitable downward spiral that will continue until Catholics can again defend the Church against her sworn enemies.

I can see pink elephants.  It doesn't mean they exist, and if I want others to believe they exist, I have to point them out.  Or at least piles of pink elephant dung that proves they exist.

I have demonstrated that DH enforces the one-sided disarmament of Church defenders, robs Catholics of courage, and castrates her sons making them little better than Episcopalians.

No, you have not.  All you have demonstrated is that you think a prohibition against attack is a prohibition against defense.  I don't like DH anymore than you do, but I dislike it for what it actually says, not for something I imagine it says.

Read the document as written and comment on it as written.  Otherwise you will be as bad as the Neo-Catholics who don't see anything wrong with it because they are reading into it what they want instead of what it actually states.
Reply
#18
This thread is about Dignitatis Humanae and if it defends or promotes Gay "rights".

A general DH thread containing the off-topic posts has been created here: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...161.0.html
Reply
#19
(05-17-2009, 09:50 PM)moneil Wrote:
(05-17-2009, 08:07 PM)columba Wrote: Do whatever you want or don't do what you don't want. Nobody can force you.

A little further on DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (#2, third paragraph) says:
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth[/i].

Somehow I'm having a very great difficulity reading [i]Do whatever you want or don't do what you don't want
into this.

In light of your DH quote, allow me to refine my short summary:

Do whatever you want or don't do what you don't want. No Catholic human authority can force you.
moneil Wrote:Then, there is the fact that Free Will is defined Catholic dogma:

I did not oppose Free Will. You make a straw rebuttal.
moneil Wrote:Free will and coercion are mutually exclusive.

The statement is unsupported. Catholics practice free will by quoting scripture against homosexuality and false religion. US Anti-Catholic politicians practice free will by passing hate laws that persecute the Church by forbidding quotation of scripture. Notre Dame University practice free will bowing down to anti-Catholic politicians that persecute the Church. The doctrine of Free Will is left intact.

Notre Dame President Fr. Jenkins defends the conferment of an honorary degree to Obama by arguing "we must also be a crossroads through which pass people of many different perspectives, backgrounds, faiths, and cultures. At this crossroads, we must be a place where people of good will are received with charity, are able to speak, be heard, and engage in responsible and reasoned dialogue."
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/ar...rcID=48163

Fr. Jenkins betrays the Catholic religion at Notre Dame because he claims the university is a place where anti-Catholics "are able to speak, be heard, and engage in responsible and reasoned dialogue."
moneil Wrote:DIGNITATIS HUMANAE is about Catholics having the right to practice their faith, and the Church having the right to minister to her children, and also to preach the Gospel to all peopes, in every land and in every time, without coercion from the temporal powers, whether those authorities are secular or religious.

This statement is demonstrably false. Citing DH, Pope Paul VI intervened to force the secularization of Spain. Now Spanish Catholics are persecuted by hate laws that overturn the right to practice their faith. DIGNITATIS HUMANAE effectively destroys the right of Religious Liberty for Catholics because the DH-"demanded" withdrawal of Catholic authority from the political sphere creates a vacuum that is necessarily filled with anti-Catholic authority.
moneil Wrote:The Church has the Gospel of Truth.  She doesn't need "penal laws", whipping posts, torture racks, or stakes to do her job.  She doesn't need to "attack", or even really need (IMHO) to disparage other "religious" systems.  She simply needs the freedom to preach the Gospel - the Holy Spirit handles the rest.

Your history is backwards. The famous "Penal Laws" along with whipping posts, torture racks, and stakes were implemented in Great Britain by the anti-Catholic monarch Elizabeth I to destroy the Catholic Church. The Penal Laws lasted 200 years until the early 1800's and were largely successful except among the Irish who only endured through immense suffering and fierce resistance. As a result of Vatican II, anti-Catholics are again establishing unchecked political control as in Elizabethan Great Britain and have started to re-implement the Penal Laws. Unless the spirit of Vatican II is overturned, Catholic officials will continue to emulate the English bishops bowing and scraping before anti-Catholic politicians who are now implementing the modern equivalent of whipping posts, torture racks, and stakes for non-compliant Catholics. We will need to endure like the English martyrs and the Irish nation before us.

Saints Thomas More and Edmund Campion, Pray For Us.
Reply
#20
(05-18-2009, 12:02 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Again, it says "the demand is made".  The document is just stating what the contemporary (to the Council) demand of society is.  Only after this does the Council comment by saying:

"This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice."

It says it notes them and says they are "greatly in accord" not "completely in accord".  Then and only then does the council give its mind on the matter.  So, you're calling an observation a teaching of the council.  We can throw this much out right now.

Yes the term "demand" is used four times by DH in the context of men allegedly demanding religious freedom. DH imposes the demands of these unspecified men upon the Bride of Christ.

DH: "Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. [...]
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom."
Quote:
Quote:Supposedly this portion is moot because there are no more Catholic states...

This portion is moot because it is not a teaching or instruction, pastoral or otherwise.  It's a statement of observation.

I just meant that DH is still very relevant today even though there currently are no more Catholics states.
Quote:Yeah, I'm not big on what this says either.  However, it does not say the Church cannot defend itself.  You are making a statement that isn't there.  It says people cannot be coerced to religious belief - it does not say that one cannot defend one's self against coercion, Catholics included.  The 10 Commandments say we can't steal, but they don't say we can't defend ourselves against theft, or be witnesses in a court of law against theft.

A call to stop an attack is much different than a call to stop defense.  There is no call to stop defense there.  Again, going to the 10 Commandments, Thou shalt not murder is much different than thou shalt not stop murder.

The seventh commandment says "Thou shalt not steal" and is enforceable by human authority upon everybody.
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE says "Thou shalt not 'impede' blasphemy" and is enforceable by human authority only upon Catholics.

Catholic truth is considered blasphemy to the anti-Catholic creeds. Catholics are now forbidden the use of force to defend against blasphemy by the written text of DH but anti-Catholics still do use force. This one-side disarmament and can only lead to the extinction of Catholic civilization if it is not renounced.
Quote:All you have demonstrated is that you think a prohibition against attack is a prohibition against defense.

Prior to Vatican II, the Church had understood that the best defense is an offense. Since DH, anti-Catholics have inflicted a devastating string of defeats upon Holy Mother Church with no end yet in sight. What difference is there between a prohibition against attack different from a prohibition against defense in the real world?
Quote:I don't like DH anymore than you do, but I dislike it for what it actually says, not for something I imagine it says.

Read the document as written and comment on it as written.  Otherwise you will be as bad as the Neo-Catholics who don't see anything wrong with it because they are reading into it what they want instead of what it actually states.

Judging DH involves subjective interpretation of text intentionally laced with "timebombs" and misdirection. Honest Catholics can disagree, but unlike Neo-Catholics, I don't need to muddy the water with slogans like "post hoc ergo proper hoc." The opinion that Vatican II disarmed the Church, widely-shared among notable Catholics and anti-Catholics, conforms with the subsequent historical record.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)