Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-09-2009, 11:58 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:2. 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.

Where is "the duty of repressing moral and religious error" found in DH? This duty has a corresponding right. Where is it?

If memory serves then you will  find it in section 7.
Reply
(06-10-2009, 12:03 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 11:58 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:2. 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.

Where is "the duty of repressing moral and religious error" found in DH? This duty has a corresponding right. Where is it?

If memory serves then you will  find it in section 7.

Quote:7. The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility.

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.

These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

Like I said, where is it?
Reply
(06-09-2009, 11:07 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Again, DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?

Again, it teaches no such thing.  In fact, the Catechism explicitly rejects it.  You are simply repeating a falsehood over and over.

Quote:2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953, 799.
38 Cf. DH 2.

Here's something a friend sent me today:

Quote:Here's a quote on "Error has no rights" from a post V2 reference book: after correctly explaining the phrase, viz. the rights of a sincere but erroneous conscience are in no wise equal to the rights of sincere and correct conscience, it succinctly says, "The Second Vatican Council rejected this thinking in its Declaration on Religious Freedom (n.3)."

Of course, other related articles are long hymns of praise to the heretic John Courtney Murray.




Reply
(06-10-2009, 12:30 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 12:03 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 11:58 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:2. 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.

Where is "the duty of repressing moral and religious error" found in DH? This duty has a corresponding right. Where is it?

If memory serves then you will  find it in section 7.

Quote:7. The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility.

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.

These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

Like I said, where is it?

Right there.
Reply
(06-10-2009, 12:39 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 11:07 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Again, DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?

Again, it teaches no such thing.  In fact, the Catechism explicitly rejects it.  You are simply repeating a falsehood over and over.

Quote:2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953, 799.
38 Cf. DH 2.

Here's something a friend sent me today:

Quote:Here's a quote on "Error has no rights" from a post V2 reference book: after correctly explaining the phrase, viz. the rights of a sincere but erroneous conscience are in no wise equal to the rights of sincere and correct conscience, it succinctly says, "The Second Vatican Council rejected this thinking in its Declaration on Religious Freedom (n.3)."

Of course, other related articles are long hymns of praise to the heretic John Courtney Murray.

Well, have no fear since the Catechism itself speaks very clearly on the matter.  "The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error."
Reply
(06-10-2009, 10:04 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 12:39 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 11:07 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Again, DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?

Again, it teaches no such thing.  In fact, the Catechism explicitly rejects it.  You are simply repeating a falsehood over and over.

Quote:2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953, 799.
38 Cf. DH 2.

Here's something a friend sent me today:

Quote:Here's a quote on "Error has no rights" from a post V2 reference book: after correctly explaining the phrase, viz. the rights of a sincere but erroneous conscience are in no wise equal to the rights of sincere and correct conscience, it succinctly says, "The Second Vatican Council rejected this thinking in its Declaration on Religious Freedom (n.3)."

Of course, other related articles are long hymns of praise to the heretic John Courtney Murray.

Well, have no fear since the Catechism itself speaks very clearly on the matter.  "The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error."

Oh, yes, that covers it. There is only a civil right to adhere to error.

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:"Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an 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 authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

"DH" Wrote:Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection.

You actually think this addresses the "duty of repressing moral and religious error" and the truth that "the Church deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion'?

Quote:Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, “although the Church deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, it does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, patiently allow custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having it’s place in the state” (Acta Leonis XIII, V, 141)

His Holiness Pius XII, confirming the principle expounded by Leo XIII, has said, “The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to a higher and more general norms, which, in some circumstances, permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a greater good.


Reply
(06-10-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Oh, yes, that covers it. There is only a civil right to adhere to error.

No, there is no "right" founded on error.
Reply
(06-10-2009, 04:33 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Oh, yes, that covers it. There is only a civil right to adhere to error.

No, there is no "right" founded on error.

There is a civil right to adhere to error.

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:"Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an 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 authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

So God cannot do it...but the civil governments can? DH says that civil governments MUST.
Reply
(06-10-2009, 05:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 04:33 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Oh, yes, that covers it. There is only a civil right to adhere to error.

No, there is no "right" founded on error.

There is a civil right to adhere to error.

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:"Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an 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 authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

So God cannot do it...but the civil governments can? DH says that civil governments MUST.

No, rights are never founded on error.  Rights can exist in spite of error -- but never founded on error.
Reply
(06-10-2009, 05:34 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 04:33 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Oh, yes, that covers it. There is only a civil right to adhere to error.

No, there is no "right" founded on error.

There is a civil right to adhere to error.

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:"Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an 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 authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

So God cannot do it...but the civil governments can? DH says that civil governments MUST.

No, rights are never founded on error.  Rights can exist in spite of error -- but never founded on error.

We aren't even talking about being "founded on error". DH demands a civil right to adhere to error.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)