Dignitatis Humanae Revisited
#21
(05-19-2009, 05:51 PM)columba Wrote:
(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.

Your homemade "corollary" does not help at all. It diminishes what Pope Pius XII has stated in Ci Riecse. Nothing contrary to truth has a right to exist, be spread, or activated. So how can man have a right to religious liberty? He cannot have the right, although he can and must at times be tolerated.

Who are these Americanists, Columba? Anyone who accepts DH as true? Or are they just being coerced into being Americanists by the evil infiltrators?
Reply
#22
(05-19-2009, 06:06 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(05-19-2009, 05:51 PM)columba Wrote:
(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.

Your homemade "corollary" does not help at all. It diminishes what Pope Pius XII has stated in Ci Riecse. Nothing contrary to truth has a right to exist, be spread, or activated. So how can man have a right to religious liberty? He cannot have the right, although he can and must at times be tolerated.

Who are these Americanists, Columba? Anyone who accepts DH as true? Or are they just being coerced into being Americanists by the evil infiltrators?

American traditionalists a) reject explicit Americanism but b) have limited interest in issues only applicable to the Catholic state (as DH is misunderstood to be) and c) are unfamiliar with differences between a right and a toleration (Americans better understand differences between a right and a privilege). Your Ci Riecse quote and description might leave the false impression that DH is solely addressed to the Catholic state.

DH says: "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 practical result is that Catholics can no longer keep schools, neighborhoods, social groups, families, or even churches exclusively or even predominately Catholic. Churches and schools then fall under the control of the infiltrators (who previously hijacked the council to implement DH).

Since papal warnings, historical evidence, and observable events are all consistent with infiltration, the burden of proof should fall upon backers of spontaneous heresy theory.
Reply
#23
(05-19-2009, 07:32 PM)columba Wrote:
(05-19-2009, 06:06 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(05-19-2009, 05:51 PM)columba Wrote:
(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.

Your homemade "corollary" does not help at all. It diminishes what Pope Pius XII has stated in Ci Riecse. Nothing contrary to truth has a right to exist, be spread, or activated. So how can man have a right to religious liberty? He cannot have the right, although he can and must at times be tolerated.

Who are these Americanists, Columba? Anyone who accepts DH as true? Or are they just being coerced into being Americanists by the evil infiltrators?

American traditionalists a) reject explicit Americanism but b) have limited interest in issues only applicable to the Catholic state (as DH is misunderstood to be) and c) are unfamiliar with differences between a right and a toleration (Americans better understand differences between a right and a privilege). Your Ci Riecse quote and description might leave the false impression that DH is solely addressed to the Catholic state.

DH says: "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 practical result is that Catholics can no longer keep schools, neighborhoods, social groups, families, or even churches exclusively or even predominately Catholic. Churches and schools then fall under the control of the infiltrators (who previously hijacked the council to implement DH).

Since papal warnings, historical evidence, and observable events are all consistent with infiltration, the burden of proof should fall upon backers of spontaneous heresy theory.

DH is incompatible with the principles laid down by Pius XII in Ci Riesce. When a Catholic prelate, even if he was a longtime occult heretic, weakling who simply does not hold fast, or infiltrator, publicly embraces some novelty, he should be avoided. You need to explain how those who hold a position unquestionably contrary to the clear teaching of the Church (whether or not solemnly defined) can still to be thought to hold authority over orthodox Catholics.

"St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Universal Church" Wrote:for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.

Reply
#24
(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.

The Church has no authority over non-Catholics so the Declaration on Religious Freedom does not compel anti-Catholic governments to cease persecution of Catholics. DH has been used to compel or encourage the secularization of Catholic states and institutions so the practical result of DH has been one-sided disarmament.
Reply
#25
Am I the only one here who sees DH as acceptable, though less than it could have been?

I don't think we're being entirely honest about what was written in the past about religious liberty, in its proper context, how things in the world have changed, and how the Church could possibly approach this new situation. In my mind DH was brutally honest: the Church cannot keep people Catholic, it cannot force Catholicism on the conscience of any person (nor is this even possible), etc. If there is a bloody revolution, then there's a bloody revolution, and we shouldn't pretend that there aren't new insurmountable circumstances to warrant a change in Church policy to democratic states, and majorly pluralistic populations. Its seems to me absolutely incredible that we're arguing about this again. If you read the text of DH, while there exist phrases that may be taken out of context to the exclusion of the rest, it is completely in accord with common sense.

Freedom of conscience is self-evident. The Church accepts this. Religious people, no matter their creed, have the right to not be bullied out of their convictions, and in the privacy of their homes, practice their religion, so long as it is not involving sin against other men. The Church accepts this.

Get over it.

If there's something I'm naively missing, let me know.
Reply
#26
(05-21-2009, 11:38 AM)anthony Wrote: Am I the only one here who sees DH as acceptable, though less than it could have been?

I don't think we're being entirely honest about what was written in the past about religious liberty, in its proper context, how things in the world have changed, and how the Church could possibly approach this new situation. In my mind DH was brutally honest: the Church cannot keep people Catholic, it cannot force Catholicism on the conscience of any person (nor is this even possible), etc. If there is a bloody revolution, then there's a bloody revolution, and we shouldn't pretend that there aren't new insurmountable circumstances to warrant a change in Church policy to democratic states, and majorly pluralistic populations. Its seems to me absolutely incredible that we're arguing about this again. If you read the text of DH, while there exist phrases that may be taken out of context to the exclusion of the rest, it is completely in accord with common sense.

Freedom of conscience is self-evident. The Church accepts this. Religious people, no matter their creed, have the right to not be bullied out of their convictions, and in the privacy of their homes, practice their religion, so long as it is not involving sin against other men. The Church accepts this.

Get over it.

If there's something I'm naively missing, let me know.

:blah: Read the aforecited documents (Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, §§ 14–16; Bl. Pius IX, Quanta Cura, § 3 and Syllabus Errorum, §§ 15 & 77–79; and Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, §§ 19ff) to understand what the Church truly teaches, and why DH is wrong.

The doctrine of religious liberty is the fruit of indifferentism.
Reply
#27
(05-21-2009, 11:38 AM)anthony Wrote: Am I the only one here who sees DH as acceptable, though less than it could have been?

I don't think we're being entirely honest about what was written in the past about religious liberty, in its proper context, how things in the world have changed, and how the Church could possibly approach this new situation. In my mind DH was brutally honest: the Church cannot keep people Catholic, it cannot force Catholicism on the conscience of any person (nor is this even possible), etc. If there is a bloody revolution, then there's a bloody revolution, and we shouldn't pretend that there aren't new insurmountable circumstances to warrant a change in Church policy to democratic states, and majorly pluralistic populations. Its seems to me absolutely incredible that we're arguing about this again. If you read the text of DH, while there exist phrases that may be taken out of context to the exclusion of the rest, it is completely in accord with common sense.

Freedom of conscience is self-evident. The Church accepts this. Religious people, no matter their creed, have the right to not be bullied out of their convictions, and in the privacy of their homes, practice their religion, so long as it is not involving sin against other men. The Church accepts this.

Get over it.

If there's something I'm naively missing, let me know.
It is naive to think that issues of DH are confined to private homes, or even private churches, or even honestly preaching one's own belief in public.

DH justifies the US government's financing of Piss Christ and declares that the Piss Christ "artist" has a right to such blasphemy grounded in the dignity of his human person.

DH declares that liars who spread intentionally deceptive propaganda should enjoy equal rights with those who preach the truth or honestly preach what they believe.

This is in addition to direct conflicts with established Church teachings which is more than enough to condemn DH.
Reply
#28
(05-21-2009, 11:38 AM)anthony Wrote: Am I the only one here who sees DH as acceptable, though less than it could have been?

I don't think we're being entirely honest about what was written in the past about religious liberty, in its proper context, how things in the world have changed, and how the Church could possibly approach this new situation. In my mind DH was brutally honest: the Church cannot keep people Catholic, it cannot force Catholicism on the conscience of any person (nor is this even possible), etc. If there is a bloody revolution, then there's a bloody revolution, and we shouldn't pretend that there aren't new insurmountable circumstances to warrant a change in Church policy to democratic states, and majorly pluralistic populations. Its seems to me absolutely incredible that we're arguing about this again. If you read the text of DH, while there exist phrases that may be taken out of context to the exclusion of the rest, it is completely in accord with common sense.

Freedom of conscience is self-evident. The Church accepts this. Religious people, no matter their creed, have the right to not be bullied out of their convictions, and in the privacy of their homes, practice their religion, so long as it is not involving sin against other men. The Church accepts this.

Get over it.

If there's something I'm naively missing, let me know.

Anthony,

You do not understand Catholic teaching on the necessity of the Church for salvation and the absolute necessity of supernatural Faith for salvation. Your understanding seems "self-evident" to you, but your understanding is not the Church's understanding. Pope Pius XII was a great theologian and he was Pope. He very cleary stated the proper Catholic PRINCIPLES with respect to the question of religious liberty. Here they are again:

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.

Supernatural Faith is a gift that we can only accept willingly. No one can be coerced into accepting it but that does not mean a man has a right to reject it or even be indifferent to it.
Reply
#29
I think that a distinction needs to be made between moral and legal right. It is reasonable to assume that this discussion addresses moral right, but Anthony's post seems to indicate that he is referring to legal right. As was quoted by Lamentabili sane:

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

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.

Anthony, are you referring to a lack of legal jurisdiction claimed by the Church?


Reply
#30
(05-21-2009, 03:38 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: I think that a distinction needs to be made between moral and legal right. It is reasonable to assume that this discussion addresses moral right, but Anthony's post seems to indicate that he is referring to legal right. As was quoted by Lamentabili sane:

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

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.

Anthony, are you referring to a lack of legal jurisdiction claimed by the Church?

This is irrelevant to the question at hand.

We can try to understand Religious liberty in many ways, but what should interest us here is what the drafters of the document Dignitatis Humanae meant by it. Some try to "reconcile" Dignitatis Humanae with Quanta Cura , for example, by not addressing much of what Dignitatis Humanae actually says. It's a kind of straw man approach; concentrate on one or two of the most offensive passages, then explain them away without reference to their context, and pretend that there is nothing else to discuss. The best way to see the imposture is to sit down actually intending to be taught by the Catholic Church via Dignitatis Humanae. That way you will actually read all that is there and try to believe it. But you can't believe it, unless you abandon the truths you already know, or should know.


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)