Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-03-2009, 10:40 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:Religious liberty was condemned in an ex cathedra definition by Pope Pius IX, as can be read in Quanta Cura, wherein a clear formula of definition is contained (We by Our Apostolic Authority, etc.).
So we don't have the religious liberty to practice our Holy Catholic Religion then? Well, you just said religious liberty was condamned? Religious liberty properly understood with the principle of duties corresponding with right is a Catholic doctrine, namely, the holy Catholic Religion has liberty and no other religion does, because the Catholic Faith is Truth and no other is.

That's not what Dignitatus Humanae says. Have you ever read it?

Quote:The teaching of Vatican II is almost verbatim the contrary of what was condemned.
Please explain how that is.

Here, from another thread:

(05-27-2009, 07:46 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: You're a real gentleman, Mike. I think further you must consider what a "right" actually is and how it is traditionally defined.

"McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, vol. I. pp. 97,98." Wrote:292. Since rights and duties are correlative—there being a duty that corresponds to every right, and vice versa—and since both are regulated by law, the principles given for the apparent collision of laws can be applied to the apparent collision of rights.

(a) Rights of a higher kind have preference over rights of a lower kind. Therefore, the rights that arise from birth itself, or from the fact that one is a human being (e.g., the right to life), are superior to the rights that are acquired through some condition, such as inheritance or contract (e.g., the right to property, etc.). Example: Titus must get his child, who is in danger of death, to a hospital without delay. Balbus is getting ready for a pleasure ride, but Titus takes his car since there is no other ready means of getting to the hospital. Titus acts within his natural rights, if the car is returned safely and as soon as possible to the owner. According to civil law his act would be technical larceny, but in view of the necessity courts and juries would certainly not insist on the letter of the law.

(b) Inalienable rights (i.e., those which one may not renounce, because they are also duties), such as the right to serve God, the right to live, etc., are superior to alienable rights (i.e., those which one may renounce), such as the right to marry, the right to own property, etc. Example: One may surrender the right to drink intoxicants in order to serve God or preserve one’s life.

"Right" as a generic concept is not defined anywhere, but it is sufficiently clear from the foregoing. Rights are correlatives of duties, and may be defined as the moral power to do, possess, or require of another, those things which duty makes necessary.

The problem is that if Vatican II (DH) meant anything comprehensible at all, it taught that a man has a natural right not to be interfered with in the exercise of whatever religion he chooses, within certain undefined limits. Now, if this is understood according to traditional terminology, it means that the state would offend against justice if it prohibited a man from practicing a false religion, unless that practice of a false religion also offended against some additional law (e.g. it disturbed the public peace in some way).

Consider that carefully - it is the assertion that the practice of a false religion is, in itself, something which may arise from the duties of man. But that is absurd and has been repeatedly condemned by popes and theologians. Again, here’s Pius XII, Ci Riesce: "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."

And he repeats the oft-repeated saw, "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."

Error, particularly in religious matters, is evil. Therefore it has no right to exist. It can, however, be tolerated for a greater good: "failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good."

The key is to define "right" as it has always been understood by Catholic philosophers and theologians - as a correlative of "duty." It is this which makes completely clear that the doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae is unacceptable and contrary to tradition and even to common sense.

Our opponents resort to a sophism (not intentional, I hope) to disguise this. They essentially assert that the "right" mentioned in Dignitatis Humanae is merely the right not to be interfered with by the state in the pursuit of the true religion, which necessarily implies that the state must grant more leeway than would be granted merely by protecting true worship, because a man needs some measure of liberty within which to discover the truth. This is clever, but it won't reconcile with the absolute principles laid down by traditional morality, and repeated by Pius XII in Ci Riesce:

"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.

However one interprets Dignitatis Humanae, it doesn't say that.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by lamentabili sane - 06-03-2009, 10:46 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)