Dignitatis Humanae Revisited
#31
(05-21-2009, 04:08 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(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.

You completely blew off my post without telling me how the difference between political authority and sprititual authority is irrelevant.
Reply
#32
(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?
Of course I am talking about legal rights.

I think it is ideal that everyone be Catholic. I think it is also ideal that everyone come to that truth freely. This is what freedom of conscience means. It is not "insane" no matter what pope wrote it.

DH is not dealing with lofty ideals though. When I read the text I find a very unhelpful (in that it is not quite practical), but nonetheless honest attempt of the Council to describe the various political, social and philosopical developments that have occured in the world. I do not think that DH is at variance, in the letter, with Christian tradition. But I do not think that everything essential to that tradition is bound up in Christendom, which is dead. This is where I might subtly be suggesting that some of the more dramatic papal expressions with regards the wrongness of a revolution against Christendom...is just that. In DH, you see the Church finally getting over her hangover, and asking herself:  Now that the world is against us (though, yes, I know, a part of it always has been), how are we to proceed? With more sincereity, calm, patience and warmth, perhaps?

Mirai Vos, while I have only read it once, seems to be irrelevant to a discussion of current affairs. While the ideal stays the same, we live in an imperfect world, and one that has drastically changed from that of Gregory, Clement and Pius. They understood their words to not only refer to that ideal, but their guidance was also provided so as to stop the chaos surrounding them, mostly in France and Italy. The chaos is over. We're living with the consequences. Again, DH takes this for granted. Don't get me started with Quanta cura. Let me say one thing though, and I guess this makes me anathema, but...The Pontiff should indeed adapt himself from age to age.

All of this chit chat, all of the words of our good popes, and the mercilessly ambiguous yet valid words of Vatican II center around one thing (in my mind): the common, greater good. I know that DH was greatly influenced by the American bishops, and Murray (S.J.) as a special theologian, and maybe this is how we should read it, as an American document, relating American experiences, questions and answers. Not everything Montalmbert and Lammenais said were wrong. In some cases the Church should readily acknowledge that, in service of the greater good, where Catholics are a minority, that in order for the Church to do her job (evangelize and baptise) she needs to be free, and she can only argue her case by rightly voicing the case of other opinions and religions...And this is what DH calls for. Religious tolerance in the face of anti-Catholicism, anti-religionism, atheism, communism, secularism, etc. Some might call this indifferentism. I think this differs greatly from indifferentism. I think this is a healthy response to the global conundrum we're in. Better religious liberty accross the board than barbaric persecution.

Anyone here read The Catholic Church and the Modern World by EEY Hayles? It might help inform ones reading of these much beloved documents that are cited so commonly, and I feel at times almost without thinking. Its just become habit to some people I suppose.
Reply
#33
"Anthony" Wrote:DH is not dealing with lofty ideals though.

Pope Pius XII was not dealing with "lofty ideals" either. Here it is again:

Pius XII has summed up the entire question in these terms:

"Ci Riesce" Wrote: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 bas 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.
Reply
#34
(05-21-2009, 05:28 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-21-2009, 04:08 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(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.

You completely blew off my post without telling me how the difference between political authority and sprititual authority is irrelevant.

If you'd just read the entire context of the statement of Ci Riesce ... I just quoted above once again...you would realize that these principles are for the "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". These are principles which guide the practical application.
Reply
#35
(05-21-2009, 06:05 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(05-21-2009, 05:28 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-21-2009, 04:08 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(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.

You completely blew off my post without telling me how the difference between political authority and sprititual authority is irrelevant.

If you'd just read the entire context of the statement of Ci Riesce ... I just quoted above once again...you would realize that these principles are for the "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". These are principles which guide the practical application.

Lamentabili sane,

I apologize for the tone of my last post. I don't know why I said that; that is not who I am. Please forget what I said...

Benedicamus Domino!
Reply
#36
"Anthony" Wrote:Anyone here read The Catholic Church and the Modern World by EEY Hayles?

Yes, I have the book. What part of the book are you suggesting we read?

"Anthony" Wrote:It might help inform ones reading of these much beloved documents that are cited so commonly, and I feel at times almost without thinking. Its just become habit to some people I suppose.

Quanta Cura is infallible, did you know that?
Reply
#37
(05-21-2009, 06:30 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-21-2009, 06:05 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(05-21-2009, 05:28 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-21-2009, 04:08 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(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.

You completely blew off my post without telling me how the difference between political authority and sprititual authority is irrelevant.

If you'd just read the entire context of the statement of Ci Riesce ... I just quoted above once again...you would realize that these principles are for the "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". These are principles which guide the practical application.

Lamentabili sane,

I apologize for the tone of my last post. I don't know why I said that; that is not who I am. Please forget what I said...

Benedicamus Domino!

No need to apologise. This is usually a heated discussion.
Reply
#38
(05-21-2009, 08:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"INPEFESS" Wrote:Anyone here read The Catholic Church and the Modern World by EEY Hayles?

Yes, I have the book. What part of the book are you suggesting we read?

"INPEFESS" Wrote:It might help inform ones reading of these much beloved documents that are cited so commonly, and I feel at times almost without thinking. Its just become habit to some people I suppose.

Quanta Cura is infallible, did you know that?

My friend, you have misquoted me as I did not make either of those statements. I have not entered this debate. I was merely addressing the importance of making the legal/moral distinction. My comment is just above your last post. 
Reply
#39
(05-21-2009, 08:08 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(05-21-2009, 08:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"INPEFESS" Wrote:Anyone here read The Catholic Church and the Modern World by EEY Hayles?

Yes, I have the book. What part of the book are you suggesting we read?

"INPEFESS" Wrote:It might help inform ones reading of these much beloved documents that are cited so commonly, and I feel at times almost without thinking. Its just become habit to some people I suppose.

Quanta Cura is infallible, did you know that?

My friend, you have misquoted me as I did not make either of those statements. I have not entered this debate. I was merely addressing the importance of making the legal/moral distinction. My comment is just above your last post. 

Thank you. I've corrected the error.
Reply
#40
(05-21-2009, 05:48 PM)anthony Wrote: Mirai Vos, while I have only read it once, seems to be irrelevant to a discussion of current affairs. While the ideal stays the same, we live in an imperfect world, and one that has drastically changed from that of Gregory, Clement and Pius.

I understand where you are coming from. You seek practical, real-world solutions that can actually work. However, you must ask yourself if you have not been misled by the media milieu. Turn off the TV!!

The only "world" that concerns the documents in question is human nature, which has not changed one iota. You can be sure that enemies of the Church operate accordingly while covering their tracks with media illusions of "change". They genuinely fear the teachings of the old Popes while pretending to despise them. Wake up my friend.

Has implementation of Vatican II actually helped or hurt the Church over the past 45 years?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)