Dignitatis Humanae Revisited
#51
(05-22-2009, 05:33 PM)columba Wrote:
(05-22-2009, 02:05 PM)moneil Wrote: I’m perceiving a decided lack of confidence by some in the Catholic Faith’s (which is the only faith to have the Holy Spirit) ability to hold its own in a competitive environment.  The Church has often flourished in times of persecution and opposition.  I am not suggesting that She not take recourse of a temporal, civic advantage if one is available.  However, she doesn’t need it to fulfill Her mission (look at the first few centuries), and I believe we should have more faith and confidence in what God can do.  That is my point.

Unnecessarily exposing oneself or one's children to the devil for the sake of  "competitive environment" is false confidence. The Church stands against persecution and opposition for the sake of truth, not to show off a sporting presumption in the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Church must seize and never discard any advantage for salvation of souls. Vatican II tragically discarded institutional authority to the cost of millions of souls.

I have never advocated exposing anyone to the devel for the sake of a conpetitive environment, nor for showing a "sporting presumption in the Holy Spirit".  The idea is absurd.  In fact, you quote me as saying that the Church should "take recourse of a temporal, civil advantage if one is available."  My point, and I stand by it, is that the Church, because it does possess the Holy Spirit, is not detered by an abscence of civil - political alliances in fulling her divine mission.  Your example of St. Edmund Campion makes that very point.

(05-22-2009, 05:33 PM)columba Wrote: 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.

moneil Wrote:My history is just fine.  I am well aware of what the Penal Laws were (the family name is O’Neil, with McGuigian, Jennings, Dunn, and Hogan in the line).  I was using that as an example of the danger of allowing a temporal civil authority to have constitutional ecclesial authority (a danger that DH addresses).  The instruments of bodily compulsion (as the Summa refers to them) existed well before Elizabeth I.  Before her father Henry VIII apostatized, heretics were routinely torched.  I recently read a biography of St. Thomas More, one of my most admired saints, and before the English apostasy he would sometimes attend these “firing ups”, as they were called, I presume as part of one of his official offices.  Later in his life, after the King had apostatized and St. Thomas had resigned or had been stripped of all of his offices, he wished nothing more than to live quietly, almost as a monk, and to care for his family and practice his faith in peace and solitude.  He then came to hold a view of religious freedom very similar to that expressed by St. Cyprian of Carthage, as cited above.  And, he was canonized!  And, let us not forget Elizabeth I's immediate predecessor, her half sister Mary I, who wasn’t called Bloody Mary for nothing.

Good Queen Mary faced a bloody Protestant insurrection upon taking power but killed far fewer and showed much greater mercy than did her successor against the Catholics. After Queen Mary, English and Scots Catholics suffered eventual genocide at the hands of their Judeo-Protestant successors. With respect, the fact that you would repeat the propaganda of "Bloody Mary" indicates you learned history at a government or Vatican II-inspired institution. I suggest reading Phillip II by William Thomas Walsh. If the Irish had surrendered to DH-style liberalism, your and my ancestors would have been killed off like the more refined English and Scots Catholics. Anti-Catholics are not bound by the niceties of liberal Catholics. Edmund Campion infiltrated England on a mission from the Jesuits and he was canonized. [/quote]

For the record, I attended a pre Vatican II parochial school with nuns in full habits.  We knelt on linolium floors in the classroom to say the rosary  every day.  We knelt on the linolium floor in the school cafeteria for Mass 1 - 3 times per week, depending on the availability of a priest  One should be cautious about drawing conclusions.  That is where I learned the phrase "Bloody Mary".  I believe the insurrection had more to do with politics, power, and the alliance with Spain, than with theology (as was often the case in religious wars).  Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Mary Tudor http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09766a.htm

My reply was in response to your statement that " whipping posts, torture racks, and stakes were implemented in Great Britain by the anti-Catholic monarch Elizabeth I to destroy the Catholic Church", and the historical, verifiable fact is that that those things existed under Henry VIII, Defender of the Faith, before he apostasised, they existed under Henry VIII after he apostasised, they existed under Queen Mary Tudor, they existed under Queen Elizabeth I.  They probable existed before and after this range.  The Catholic Encyclopedia reports that under Queen Mary: "In less than four years 277 persons were burned to death".  I do not have the numbers for her father (Henry) or half sister (Elizabeth).  I do believe, however, that one should try to be as accurate and factual as possible when discussing important matters.

I don't know waht "surrendered to DH-style liberalism" means.  DH calls for constitutionally guaranteed religoius liberty (yes, for everybody, and I realize that is the issue with many).  That liberty that's called for includes the Catholic Church.  Where this liberty exists, it would mean that nobody is being killed off.  That's kind of the point - the Church has unfettered freedom to fullfill her divine mission, Catholics have unfettered freedom to to practice their faith, and the others have unfettered freedom to hear the authentic Gospel from the true Church, and the unfettered freedom to use their free will to embrace it.  Can someone explain to me how this is un Catholic?  I'm still confused on that point.  ???  And, let me go over another point again.  IF there were a Catholic confessional state, and everybody were Catholic ... one would imagine the Church would address that situation very differently, and She has in the past.  THAT's not what we are talking about today (or at the time DH was written).  We are talking about secular governments in modern societies where the population is culturally, racially, and religiously very pluralistic, or, non-Catholic confessional states where one could loose their head for converting.  In that real world situation the Church is insisting on her divine right of liberty to fullfill her mission.  Can someone explain to me how this is un Catholic?  I'm still confused on that point.  ???  

moneil Wrote:Are there any examples of these supposed re-implemented Penal Laws?  Me thinks not, but if there were, that is exactly the kind of thing that DH condemns!

(05-17-2009, 08:07 PM)columba Wrote: Canadian/European anti-Gospel hate speech laws are on the way.

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/index....-criticism

With all due respect, I really can't accept this as an example of re-implemented Penal Laws.   Wild speculation, with no substantiation, and the First Amendment still stands to protect.  The Constitution trumps legislation.  And, other than the absurd idea that Christians won't be able to read the Passion narrative from St. John's Gospel anymore (which is so rediculous one can hardly comment on it), there was nothing in that article indicating how Catholics would not be free to practice their faith, as I don't recall where having an opnion on the modern state of Israel, one way or the other, is an article of faith in the Catholic Church.
Reply
#52
(05-22-2009, 07:17 PM)columba Wrote:
(05-22-2009, 03:20 PM)moneil Wrote: But, the main point I've been committed to making, and which nobody else in this thread has addressed, is what about all the other Catholics in the world, who don't have religious freedom (which is the issue DH is addressing)?  Should the Church say or do nothing to secure their right to embrace and practice the Catholic faith?

I have addressed this point repeatedly since the beginning of this thread but you have not responded. Non-Catholics are not bound by Church teaching.

I don't recall where you have every addressed the question of how the Church should respond to the situation of all the other Catholics in the world, who don't have religious freedom .  Saying Non-Catholics are not bound by Church teaching. is not addressing the point.  What should the Church do?  Or, do you think she should do nothing.

Also, I'm pretty sure Non-Catholics are not bound by Church teaching. is, in fact, contrary to Catholic doctrine.  Since the Catholic Church holds the truth, all are bound, morally, to that truth.  There are volumnes of citations from traditional sources on this, which I don't have time to cite, but it's what we believe.

The Church was laying out how things should be (The Church should have freedom).  There is no illusion that all governments will respond, but the truth stands, and the Church has a duty to state the truth in light of todays circumstances.
Reply
#53
(05-22-2009, 08:00 PM)moneil Wrote: I don't recall where you have every addressed the question of how the Church should respond to the situation of all the other Catholics in the world, who don't have religious freedom .  Saying Non-Catholics are not bound by Church teaching. is not addressing the point.  What should the Church do?  Or, do you think she should do nothing.

The only way is to convince and/or compel the oppressing power to allow Catholics freedom. For instance, since Catholics are not currently allowed to build churches in most Islamic countries, countries like Spain or Italy might agree to permit the building of one new mosque for every new church built in Islamic countries. However, since DH grants Muslims full religious freedom and declares that Catholics must never "impede" on that freedom, no such arrangement is feasible. Muslims treat Catholics like doormats, building mosque after mosque in formerly Catholic countries while prohibiting new churches in their own. One cannot blame Muslims for this because they did not force DH upon us. Of course one can hardly expect Muslims to be so suicidal as to impose the equivalent of DH upon themselves. Nor can one blame them for ridiculing Catholics, which they do since our liberalism is disgraceful to them as it would be to past (and no doubt future) generations of Catholics. It is widely predicted this "competitive environment" will result in a majority Muslim Europe very soon. That is the inheritance the current generation bequests to its children and grandchildren.

The same principles apply in Israel with Jews, India with Hindus, China with Communists, Russia with Orthodox, etc. The issue of church-building is only one among many. Now do you understand how DH is one-sided surrender?
Quote:Also, I'm pretty sure Non-Catholics are not bound by Church teaching. is, in fact, contrary to Catholic doctrine.  Since the Catholic Church holds the truth, all are bound, morally, to that truth.  There are volumnes of citations from traditional sources on this, which I don't have time to cite, but it's what we believe.

Are you bound by Jewish law? If you were you would be Jewish. Jews are not bound by Catholic law. If they were they would be Catholic. A non-Catholic is not required to become a Catholic.
Quote:The Church was laying out how things should be (The Church should have freedom).  There is no illusion that all governments will respond, but the truth stands, and the Church has a duty to state the truth in light of todays circumstances.

The truth is that everybody has freedom and equal rights to the speak the Truth and that nobody has rights to propound error (even if it is sometimes allowed inside mosques or synagogues for the sake of peace). That is the constant teaching of the Church.
Reply
#54
(05-19-2009, 10:39 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: 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.

Perhaps there is occasion for an office-holder suspected of heresy to be left in place when immediate removal could cause greater harm than good for the salvation of souls or is otherwise impractical.
Reply
#55
moneil" Wrote:
"lamentabili sane" Wrote:
"moneil" Wrote:I really have no cause – I just want to have the freedom to practice my Catholic faith without coercion from the civil authorities, and I would hope that Catholics in every part of the world would enjoy this same right; and also, that the Church would have the right to continue to take the Gospel to every corner of the earth – and that all peoples, exercising their free will, would have the right to embrace the true faith.  That’s all.

That's nice moneil, except this isn't the teaching of the Church. The fact that error may be and must be tolerated at times does not correspond to a right to choose error nor a right not to be coerced in any way.

With all due respect, I have no clue what you mean.  As I said: I want the freedom to practice my Catholic faith ... I hope that Catholics in every part of the world enjoy this same right ... that the Church (I hope you understand that I mean the Catholic Church here) have the right to take the Gospel to every corner of the earth ... that all peoples have the right to embrace the true faith.

So, you are saying that Catholics shouldn't have freedom to practice the faith, that the Church shouldn't have the freedom to evangelize the world, that people shouldn't have the freedom to embrace the true faith? 

No. You are saying that in order for Catholics to have the freedom to practise their faith (the one true faith) there must be a right for all others to practice their false religions. You, following DH are saying their cannot be a confessional state because it would violate religious freedom (a masonic idea, mind you) based on the dignity of the human person.  This is directly opposed to the Syllabus of Errors and the section of Ci Riesce I quoted earlier; here it is again:

"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 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.

"moneil" Wrote:As for  your second sentence, did you read the citation from St. Cyprian of Carthage?   The same Catholic Encyclopedia article says  St. Hilary of Poitiers (Liber contra Auxentium, c. iv), protested vigorously against any use of force in the province of religion, whether for the spread of Christianity or for preservation of the Faith.   There is actually a lot of material in this vein.  Are you saying canonized saints taught heresy?  Can you provide documentation that these saints' writings have been supressed?  Otherwise, I must conclude that their positions are also part of the authentic tradition of the Church, and I'm sticking with it.

And this is perfectly consistent with Ci Riesce. And actually, even canonised saints can be wrong on specific points and many have been. But the Popes teaching cannot be wrong on this matter. Here is Scheeben explaining (and note that he uses Quanta Cura as an example!):

"Scheeben" Wrote:III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta Cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.

4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben's “Dogmatik” Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning Vol. 1. The Sources Of Theological Knowledge, God, Creation And The Supernatural Order Third Edition, Revised, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Lt. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benziger Bros. 1906

"moneil" Wrote:But, the main point I've been committed to making, and which nobody else in this thread has addressed, is what about all the other Catholics in the world, who don't have religious freedom (which is the issue DH is addressing)?  Should the Church say or do nothing to secure their right to embrace and practice the Catholic faith?  Are you okay with that?

It has been addressed by several people now, you're just not listening because your "goal" is to defend DH, by hook or by crook. The Church cannot change the truth. Quanta Cura is infallible.
Reply
#56
"moneil" Wrote:As I said above, before my ramble  , I've not the knowledge, nor any mandate from the magisteriem, to in engage in profound theological debate.  It seems self evident to me, though, that the Church has a Divine mission to evangelize the world, and to accomplish that mission, in the circumstances of today's world, She needs to succeed "... in achieving a stable situation of right as well as of fact and the independence which is necessary for the fulfillment of her divine mission", and that right and independence needs to come from governments that are either secular or non-Catholic confessional states.

For those who feel that DH did not approach this in an appropriate way, I think they have an intellectual obligation to present an alternate approach, and I would be fascinated to hear it.  If there are those who will argue that the plight of persecuted Catholics is irrelevant  , ; I can't reconcile that with anything the Church teaches, I'll just have to pray harder on their behalf.

You, moneil, must give your assent to the teaching of the encyclicals, not disagree with them under the auspices of some "intellectual obligation"  that you have cooked up. Your intellectual obligation is to give your assent to the teaching of the Church. This is not about the plight of persecuted Catholics, and until you realize that we don't really have any common ground.
Reply
#57
(05-22-2009, 07:47 PM)moneil Wrote: I'm still confused on that point.  ???

Yes, Moneil, you are.  But you are more than that.  You are wrong.  I can't tell whether you are taking a page directly from Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J., a person condemned by the Holy Office of the Church, or Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, who was imbued with the errors of Fr. Murray; however, it is obvious that you have indeed drunk the kool-aid.   :dunce:
Reply
#58
Quanta cura is infallible? Which points exactly?

DH is concerned with civic rights based in natural law (and assuming human dignity). It was not written for Catholic states. Moreover, its a declaration. And it clearly states that it leaves in tact the traditional teaching of the church in this matter. An allocution of Pius XII would not fit this description necessarily.

Moneil has written what I've been thinking, which is something between a rock and a hard place.

Again, any thoughts on this essay? I'd cite the relevant parts, because its fairly well documented and constructed, but there's no way to select text properly. Its not too long. And you're lucky to be able to read it!

http://books.google.ca/books?id=YT0Co8kyl7AC&pg=PA359&lpg=PA359&dq=F.+Russell+Hittinger,+Dignitatis+Humanae&source=bl&ots=9coi-LrAe6&sig=nvcTFTJ13c55Z-pgTPVTnSOUWqk&hl=en&ei=mp4WSu3QMJDflQeM7MHWCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

(05-23-2009, 12:52 AM)Underdog Wrote: I can't tell whether you are taking a page directly from Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J., a person condemned by the Holy Office of the Church
He wasn't condemned as such. He was strongly advised to stop writing. I'm not quite sure why.
Reply
#59
(05-23-2009, 07:57 AM)anthony Wrote: Quanta cura is infallible? Which points exactly?

Any condemnatory statements are infallible. The Syllabus of Errors is infallible. And, as I noted, you must give your assent to the encyclicals, as Pius XII clearly states in Humani Generis:

"Humani Generis" Wrote:20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

"anthony" Wrote:DH is concerned with civic rights based in natural law (and assuming human dignity). It was not written for Catholic states.

Ci Riesce was not addressing the Catholic State exclusively either. Pope Pius XII was addressing the Catholic State "in consideration of the community of nations".

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:No human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth and moral good. Such a command or such authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorization, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity.

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 interest of a higher and more general good.

"anthony" Wrote:Moreover, its a declaration. And it clearly states that it leaves in tact the traditional teaching of the church in this matter. An allocution of Pius XII would not fit this description necessarily.

And here we have the usual "that's not infallible" argument. What Pius XII said in Ci Riesce is perfectly consistent with the Syllabus of errors and all the other teachings of the Popes that you dismiss. Quanta Cura is infallible and Ci Riesce requires your assent.

"anthony" Wrote:Moneil has written what I've been thinking, which is something between a rock and a hard place.

Being wrong creates insurmountable difficulties, doesn't it?

"anthony" Wrote:Again, any thoughts on this essay? I'd cite the relevant parts, because its fairly well documented and constructed, but there's no way to select text properly. Its not too long. And you're lucky to be able to read it!

This whole issue of religious liberty was addressed in The American Ecclesiastical Review in the 1950's. Both Cardinal Ottaviani (Holy Office) and Pope Pius XII addressed it very clearly. They were opposed to the heterodox ideas of John Courtney Murray.


"anthony" Wrote:
(05-23-2009, 12:52 AM)Underdog Wrote: I can't tell whether you are taking a page directly from Fr. John Courtney Murray, S.J., a person condemned by the Holy Office of the Church
He wasn't condemned as such. He was strongly advised to stop writing. I'm not quite sure why.

It was because his writing was opposed to the teaching of the Church. He was rehabilitated (along with all the other unorthodox theolgians) at Vatican II.
Reply
#60
(05-23-2009, 07:57 AM)anthony Wrote: And it clearly states that it leaves in tact the traditional teaching of the church in this matter.

Do you know why DH contains that statement, which is totally incoherent and false given the actual content of the document? Simply because the conservative (mainly Italian and Spanish) prelates would not vote for DH. That statement was added to obtain their votes.

By the way, it is under pressure from the Holy See, with reference to DH, that Spain adopted a law on the 28th of June, 1967, establishing religious freedom, and the influence of the Conciliar document is clear in the redaction thereof: "El Estado español reconoce el derecho a la libertad religiosa fundado en la dignidad de la persona humana [DH, § 2: "el derecho a la libertad religiosa está realmente fundado en la dignidad misma de la persona humana"] y asegura a ésta, con la protección necesaria, la inmunidad de toda coacción en el ejercicio legítimo de tal derecho."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)