Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
"Again, this is TOLERATION. DH isn't about's about a RIGHT."

Its about both -- as these are not opposed.  In the 3rd scenario (below) the Church HAS to tolerate to the extent that the individuals do not violate natural  moral  law.  Individuals have a moral right to do  their moral duty.  

(06-09-2009, 11:36 PM)newschoolman Wrote: "There is a DUTY of repressing moral and religious error. In some circumstances it is PERMITTED to tolerate this error."

Yes, someties there is a positive duty to repress error and vice.  Sometimes there is a duty to tolerate it in order to  avoid greater evils.  In other cases there can be a duty to tolerate it for the sake of a superior good -- a superior right (i.e., those following the natural moral law).  Suarez explains each of these scenarios (below):


"It appears as though the religious practices of the unbelievers, notably all of the unbaptized as, e.g., pagans and Mohammedans, may not be tolerated in Christian nations since they involve superstition and injury to the honor that is owed to the true God, whose honor Christian rulers have an obligation to uphold.[12] St. Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God.[13] 

Regarding the first, the Church may not tolerate them on the part of her own unbelieving subjects. But that is merely the general principle. It may happen often that Christian rulers cannot prevent even such practices without causing greater harm to the nation and to the Christian inhabitants. In that case, the ruler may tolerate such evil with a clear conscience on the basis of what Christ said to the servant who asked the master whether they should remove the weeds from the field. He replied, 'No, or perhaps while you are gathering the tares you will root up the wheat with them.' (idid. sect. IV, n. 9)

As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate them.[14]  St. Gregory addressed himself clearly to this problem regarding Jews, and he forbade anyone to deprive them of their synagogues or to prevent them from observing their religious practices therein. (Lib. I Epistol. 34) Elsewhere he reaffirmed that no one should prevent Jews from participating in their religious observances. (Lib. II. Ep. 15) The reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted. (ibid. n. 10)

Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by newschoolman - 06-09-2009, 11:49 PM

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)