Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-05-2009, 08:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:41 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: I might be wrong about a few things here but Ci Riesce does not support your view. The last quote speaks of tolerance of error, not a right to be tolerated.

Tolerance and right are not necessarily opposed -- they can both co-exist.  Here is the necessary distinction -- we tolerate for 1 of 2 reasons:

1) Toleration in order to avoid greater evils (here there is no right for the erring person insofar as his error is vincible)
2) Toleration for the sake of a superior good which the erring person has a claim to in justice (e.g., the right to fulfill his moral duty as a means to his last end).

In this second case, the [error] is tolerated for the sake of a superior good and tolerance and right are not opposed.

"the right to fulfill his moral duty as a means to his last end"

Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.

No, the duty and corresponding right has do do with obeying a certain conscience -- whether correct or honestly erring.  The right is not founded on the error insofar as error has no rights -- but it exists even in spite of it by virtue of the superior good.  Yes, to deny due freedom of conscience is to deny man a means to his last end... 

Man’s right to moral integrity is violated in the following ways:
By refusing him due freedom of conscience.  The right to be free to follow conscience has first a negative aspect.  No one may be compelled to do what his conscience says is wrong, not even when conscience is invincibly erroneous.  The right is inalienable; no one may surrender it since it is necessary in order to fulfill the absolute obligation of avoiding evil.  It is indefeasible and may not be taken away by any authority.  To do so would deprive the individual of an essential means to his last end…But must a man always be free to do what conscience says must be done?  He should be so free except when the act would militate against the common good or the equivalent good of another person.  (Fr. Thomas J. Higgins, S.J., Man as Man: The Science and Art of Ethics, TAN Publishers, 1958, 1992, pp. 353-354)


   
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by newschoolman - 06-05-2009, 10:57 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)