Dignitatis Humanae Revisited
#11
(05-18-2009, 02:37 AM)moneil Wrote: In the situation of a world (the 1960's) in which there were few confessional Catholic states, outside of the Vatican City state, and in which probable the vast majority of the world's peoples lived in states that did not allow the true Catholic faith to be propagated, nor for believers in those countries to openely practice their faith, and perhaps suffer severe persecution if they were found to be practicing their faith (Soviet Union, China, Burma, parts of India, Sadiua Arabia, to mention just a few), our Holy Mother Church, under the guidence of the Holy Spirit, asked that Her children throughout the world be allowed to practice their faith.  She further said that those who have found their way, through the gift of faith, to desire to embrace the one true faith, must have the right to do so.
DH recognizes freedom of religion as a right for all religions everywhere, which goes against what the Church has always taught.

Hello!  Consider the context.  Woud it have been more efficacious for Holy Mother Church to have said, especially to some of these countries (1) We are the one true Church, which she did say in DH, as I have already cited; (2) we insist on our right to propagate and practice our true faith everywhere, which she did say; and (3), oh, and by the way, if one of your people happens to wander over to our neighborhood and wants to practice their strange religion, they will be persecuted, cuz it would just be wrong to allow them to do that.  IDK, I'm not sure that would have sounded so good.
Answer to your questions: yes, yes, and not persecute, but restrain from practicing publicly.  There is a difference between persecution and restraint (or coercion).

The bottom like is the One True Church has and insists upon the right to propagate and practice the one true faith in every part of the world - in fact, that is her mission.  If we can get secular and non-Catholic religious governments to not interfere with religion, that will facilitate the Church's mission.
DH paved the way for the dismantling of the last of the Catholic states.  Why not just restate the traditional Catholic teaching that the practice of false religions may be tolerated to avoid a greater evil or obtain a greater good?  Instead, DH states that adherents of false religions have a right to public practice.

I'm assuming the majority of posters here live in countries where they enjoy unfettered freedom to both practice and promote their Catholic Faith.  It seems hypocrytical to say the Church should not work for that same right for others less fortunate in this regard, it what ever way She can get it done.
But it cannot say, without contradicting what had always been taught, that religious freedom (no matter the religion) is a right.

You seem to think coercion makes one a slave--my children might complain sometimes that it does.  :)
Reply
#12
(05-17-2009, 09:50 PM)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.

I do not agree with columba, but you are wrong. Dignitatis Humanae is about granting to adherents of other religions freedom of conscience, which Pope Gregory XVI, in the encyclical Mirari Vos, called an "insanity".

(05-17-2009, 09:50 PM)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.

She does, however, need to protect the souls of Her children, to which end rulers are to employ coercion in ensuring that Catholics not be exposed to the doctrine of false religions.
Reply
#13
(05-18-2009, 01:58 AM)moneil Wrote: I shoud have phrased my query better though.  It seems there are some here who are against religious liberty.  I woud take that to mean that they believe non-Catholics should not have liberty to practice some other belief system.  Also, that they believe that authorities, civil or religious, should enjoin them from practicing these other belief systems.  For, if they were allowed to practice these other belief systems that woud mean that they have religious liberty, which some here seem to be against.  So, if these non-Catholics are to be enjoined from practicing these other belief systems, by what manner would you in fact prevent them from practicing these other belief systems?  Because, in fact, if you do not enjoin them from practicing these other belief systems in some manner, you are in fact granting them religious liberty, which some here seem to be against.

No: religious liberty, as condemned by Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, §§ 14–16, Bl. Pius IX in Quanta Cura, § 3 and Syllabus Errorum, §§ 15 & 77–79, and Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum, §§ 19ff, refers to public practice of a false religion, as Cardinal Ottaviani so well explained: "Just as the civil power considers it right to protect citizens from the seductions of error, so it may also regulate and moderate the public expression of other forms of worship and defend its citizens against the diffusion of false doctrines which, in the judgment of the Church, endanger their eternal salvation."

(05-18-2009, 02:37 AM)moneil Wrote: In the situation of a world (the 1960's) in which there were few confessional Catholic states, outside of the Vatican City state, and in which probable the vast majority of the world's peoples lived in states that did not allow the true Catholic faith to be propagated, nor for believers in those countries to openely practice their faith, and perhaps suffer severe persecution if they were found to be practicing their faith (Soviet Union, China, Burma, parts of India, Sadiua Arabia, to mention just a few), our Holy Mother Church, under the guidence of the Holy Spirit, asked that Her children throughout the world be allowed to practice their faith.  She further said that those who have found their way, through the gift of faith, to desire to embrace the one true faith, must have the right to do so.

Here is the list of confessional Catholic states on 7 December 1965, date of the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae:
- Argentina;
- Bolivia;
- Costa Rica;
- Haiti;
- Italy;
- Liechtenstein;
- Malta;
- Monaco;
- Spain;
- Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden, Nidwalden, Schwyz, Uri and Zug;
- Vatican City.

Additionally, basically all people in the Western bloc could freely preach and practise Catholicism. Dignitatis Humanae was considered by prelates from Spain, Italy and the Roman Curia as a "concession to atheism", and it was considered revolutionary; it was meant to be. DH was largely the work of Fr John Courtney Murray, SJ — whom Cardinal Ottaviani's Holy Office, back in 1952, had forbidden from writing on religious liberty, so un-Catholic was his work.

(05-18-2009, 01:58 AM)moneil Wrote: Hello!  Consider the context.  Woud it have been more efficacious for Holy Mother Church to have said, especially to some of these countries (1) We are the one true Church, which she did say in DH, as I have already cited; (2) we insist on our right to propagate and practice our true faith everywhere, which she did say; and (3), oh, and by the way, if one of your people happens to wander over to our neighborhood and wants to practice their strange religion, they will be persecuted, cuz it would just be wrong to allow them to do that.  IDK, I'm not sure that would have sounded so good.

But that is what She did say in the aforecited encyclicals!

(05-18-2009, 01:58 AM)moneil Wrote: The bottom like is the One True Church has and insists upon the right to propagate and practice the one true faith in every part of the world - in fact, that is her mission.  If we can get secular and non-Catholic religious governments to not interfere with religion, that will facilitate the Church's mission.

I'm assuming the majority of posters here live in countries where they enjoy unfettered freedom to both practice and promote their Catholic Faith.  It seems hypocrytical to say the Church should not work for that same right for others less fortunate in this regard, it what ever way She can get it done.

No, that is indifferentism.

You seem to have a warped view of what DH says; have you actually read it, or are you only following McMaster's lead?
Reply
#14
Notice: moneil's first post on this thread was previously posted to another thread. I responded on that other thread but now copy that response to this thread.
(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
#15
(05-18-2009, 11:26 AM)veritatem_dilexisti Wrote: Additionally, basically all people in the Western bloc could freely preach and practise Catholicism. Dignitatis Humanae was considered by prelates from Spain, Italy and the Roman Curia as a "concession to atheism", and it was considered revolutionary; it was meant to be. DH was largely the work of Fr John Courtney Murray, SJ — whom Cardinal Ottaviani's Holy Office, back in 1952, had forbidden from writing on religious liberty, so un-Catholic was his work.

Religious liberty is well-established for atheists, but is now under attack in the Western bloc:

"It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament’s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus."
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index....criticism/
Reply
#16
moneil Wrote:I shoud have phrased my query better though.  It seems there are some here who are against religious liberty.  I woud take that to mean that they believe non-Catholics should not have liberty to practice some other belief system.
First, "SHOULD NOT HAVE" is not the same as "DO NOT HAVE". All have free will. But we humans do not have the right to every action we can do, that is, to absolutely unlimited liberty. We have the right to true Christian liberty, to do good. There is no human right to do an evil action, that is, to sin. This does not mean that no human can sin, but that no human OUGHT to sin.

Quote:Also, that they believe that authorities, civil or religious, should enjoin them from practicing these other belief systems.  For, if they were allowed to practice these other belief systems that woud mean that they have religious liberty, which some here seem to be against.  So, if these non-Catholics are to be enjoined from practicing these other belief systems, by what manner would you in fact prevent them from practicing these other belief systems?  Because, in fact, if you do not enjoin them from practicing these other belief systems in some manner, you are in fact granting them religious liberty, which some here seem to be against.
The Church makes distinction between the baptized and the non-baptized though. She has Divine Rights over all baptized souls, whether they are Catholics or outside the Church does not matter. She has the Divine Right and corresponding Duty to compel all baptized souls to their duty to the Christian Religion which is the only Christian Religion. Furthermore She has the Right and Duty to preach the Gospel to all the souls in this world. She has not corporal or disciplinary Rights over the non-baptized but She does have the Right to defend Herself and Her Children from such, if need be. Hence why we had the Crusades against the Muslims.

Quote:As to my second question, I hardly think that for a Roman or Eastern Catholic to believe that the Holy Spirit is sufficienty powerful to protect, guide and prosper the Church to be an absurd concept.  In fact, to believe otherwise doesn't seem Catholic.
But the Holy Ghost uses men to protect the Church also. There is a human element to the Church. Why would you defend your family against a robber or mugger with that kind of logic? God can protect you and give you all things, He is ALL mighty. But the fact is that He wants us to do some things for ourselves. God can sustain your body without food so does that mean you are not going to eat any food?
Reply
#17
moneil, you seem not to understand the meaning of the Dogma of Free Will. This Sacred Dogma does not give men the right to an amoral belief system nor irreligion. This Dogma only means that men have the ability to choose between either Heaven or Hell, good or sin, love or hate, truth or error, but it does not dictate that they have the right to choose between these. Men only have the right to do good and believe truth, for this is the purpose of our nature, the reason for our creation. This is the foundation of our nature that we must understand if we are going to understand God's and the Church's Divine Rights over the souls. You are denying God's, and hence the Church's, Divine Rights when you say that He through His Church cannot force baptized souls to filfull their duties and that She has not the right to defend Herself from heretics and/or pagans or any other of Her enemies. The fact is that men only have the right to choose God and His Will and that they have no right to go against Him, though God permits us for a time do so or have the ability to do.
As Holy Ghost says: (Ecclesiasticus 31) Blessed is the rich man that is found without blemish: and that hath not gone after gold, nor put his trust in money nor in treasures. 9 Who is he, and we will praise him? for he hath done wonderful things in his life. 10 Who hath been tried thereby, and made perfect, he shall have glory everlasting. He that could have transgressed, and hath not transgressed: and could do evil things, and hath not done them: 11 Therefore are his goods established in the Lord, and all the church of the saints shall declare his alms. 12 Art thou set at a great table? be not the first to open thy mouth upon it. 13 Say not: There are many things which are upon it. 14 Remember that a wicked eye is evil. 15 What is created more wicked than an eye? therefore shall it weep over all the face when it shall see.

Reply
#18
(05-18-2009, 04:47 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
Quote:As to my second question, I hardly think that for a Roman or Eastern Catholic to believe that the Holy Spirit is sufficienty powerful to protect, guide and prosper the Church to be an absurd concept.  In fact, to believe otherwise doesn't seem Catholic.

But the Holy Ghost uses men to protect the Church also. There is a human element to the Church. Why would you defend your family against a robber or mugger with that kind of logic?

Vatican II is a product of the modernist  West where, in many parts, it has become practically illegal to defend your family against a robber or mugger. DH applies the same logic by theoretically allowing for defense of the Church while disallowing the most historically effective means of doing so which involves a charitable and enlightened application of force.

Observers have interpreted the collective actions of Western societies as a form of gradual suicide. The Catholic Church is the core institution and foundation of the West and Vatican II is its written suicide pact.
Reply
#19
Pope Pius XII dealt with the question of religious liberty in Ci Riesce:

Quote:Allocution delivered by the Holy Father to the Union of Italian Catholic Jurists on Dec. 6, 1953:

Pius XII has summed up the entire question in these terms: Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of  morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread, or to be activated.

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Now try to square these principles with DH.
Reply
#20
(05-18-2009, 05:39 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of  morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread, or to be activated.

This might be difficult for American[ist]s to swallow, but a corollary to help with understanding would be:

The Catholic Church denies there is any right of a) blasphemy against Jesus, Mary, or the truths of revelation b) calumny against he Church.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)