Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-09-2009, 12:15 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 12:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 10:50 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 10:47 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: DH (and you are defending it) assumes a conscience contrary to this definition:

Quote:The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him who both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives.

So, you assert that this contradicts DH?  Show me where and how?

Conscience "is a messenger from Him who both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives." DH denies this.

Where and how does DH "deny" this?

The drafters of DH believed that conscience is other than "from Him who both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives".

You have argued that the "moral good" Pius XII speaks of in Ci Riesce is being obedient to conscience, which includes error of any kind, as long as it is invincible. DH gives a positive authorisation to error. You claim that an erring conscience can contain what is contrary to "religious truth and moral good".

"Pius XII, 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."

"Pius XII, Ci Riesce" Wrote:"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:

"Pius XII, Ci Riesce" Wrote:"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 drafters of DH no longer believed that "error has no rights". DH expresses this belief.


Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by lamentabili sane - 06-09-2009, 08:36 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)