Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-10-2009, 10:04 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 12:39 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 11:07 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:Again, DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?

Again, it teaches no such thing.  In fact, the Catechism explicitly rejects it.  You are simply repeating a falsehood over and over.

Quote:2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953, 799.
38 Cf. DH 2.

Here's something a friend sent me today:

Quote:Here's a quote on "Error has no rights" from a post V2 reference book: after correctly explaining the phrase, viz. the rights of a sincere but erroneous conscience are in no wise equal to the rights of sincere and correct conscience, it succinctly says, "The Second Vatican Council rejected this thinking in its Declaration on Religious Freedom (n.3)."

Of course, other related articles are long hymns of praise to the heretic John Courtney Murray.

Well, have no fear since the Catechism itself speaks very clearly on the matter.  "The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error."

Oh, yes, that covers it. There is only a civil right to adhere to error.

"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."

"DH" Wrote:Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection.

You actually think this addresses the "duty of repressing moral and religious error" and the truth that "the Church deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion'?

Quote:Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, “although the Church deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, it does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, patiently allow custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having it’s place in the state” (Acta Leonis XIII, V, 141)

His Holiness Pius XII, confirming the principle expounded by Leo XIII, has said, “The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to a higher and more general norms, which, in some circumstances, permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a greater good.


Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by lamentabili sane - 06-10-2009, 02:29 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)