Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
#69
(06-04-2009, 04:17 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 04:08 PM)didishroom Wrote: We have the freedom to practice any religion but not the right. Error and falsehood has no right.
Error and falsehood have no rights, neither does truth in it's nature of mere knowledge. Persons or beings alone have rights, and each and every right they have has equivalent corresponding duty. Hence, since we all have the duty to practice the Catholic Religion, we all have the right to practice It.

And since there can be no duty to practice a false religion, there can be no right to practice it.

"LS" Wrote: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.

Quote:But they do have the right "to be immune from coercion...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."

No, they do not, as explained above.


Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by lamentabili sane - 06-04-2009, 04:25 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)