Poll: Which of the following quotes best reflects your views regarding religious liberty?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
13
0%
0 0%
4
0%
0 0%
12
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Religious liberty
#1
:)
Reply
#2
I voted both. Here are my thoughts.

"It is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man." 

Note the word "unconditional": it does not rule out conditional freedoms. Those conditions can be a) based on conditions of a given society and or b) based on the freedoms themselves (e.g.: freedom of thought, to a certain but not absolute extent).

We also have have in mind what we mean by 'freedom' here. Freedom seems to mean here the mere potential to do whatever.  then clearly no one has the right to do anything they want (the right to do something is conditional on it being moral).

"The right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself."

Freedom here is used differently to connote a legitimate form it. But it makes no claim that that freedom is unconditional, only that, under certain conditions, the right to practice one's religion does have its basis in both natural and divine law. Clearly this must be the case, or else Catholics have no right to practice their religion.

As regarding other religions, it makes no claim the right is unconditional. Only that where it is conditional (e.g.: when the common good is better realised by tolerating false religions to practice), then the (conditional) right has its basis in natural and divine law.




Reply
#3
I also said both.

The first regards unconditional freedoms without any limits derived from the common good, the objective moral order, etc.

The second regards man's universal end. God is the end to which all men are called and they have a duty to pursue that end. So they all must have the right to pursue that end. Also, the act of faith, which is the beginning of the process towards that end, must be freely made.

Reply
#4
Religious freedom is a modernist heresy:

Bl Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.


Reply
#5
(11-17-2010, 01:00 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: Religious freedom is a modernist heresy:

Bl Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

No-one has a response for this?--or an attempt to reconcile this with Dignitatis Humanae?
Reply
#6
I'll give it a crack.

First, it’s good to establish the authority of the Syllabus. Each allocution listed has to be read and evaluated on its own merits. The Syllabus is like the "Cliff-Notes" to all those other works. Bl. J.H. Cardinal Newman explains this well here:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglic...tion7.html

The first citation, Maxima quidem, actually contains a solemn condemnation of general principles—in other words, it has a definitive character. But what is being condemned is not the fact that someone cannot be forced to abjure their false religion and embrace Catholicsm (see Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 104; Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, para. 36; Bl. Gregory X, Protection of the Jews, para. 3.).

What is being condemned is a religious indifferentism that was founded on the erroneous idea that all religious truth is derived purely from natural means and especially human reason. Therefore man was only subject to his own reason alone in his religious convictions—it excluded any obligation towards God to place one’s faith in supernatural revelation. In other words, what is being condemned is the idea that you can make up whatever religion you want, as long as it seems reasonableto you and that suffices for salvation--or whatever purpose you see as reasonable for religion (this was the precursor to modernism which even abandoned reason for an even vaguer sentiment). DH is not dealing with this issue, but rather with the limits civil authorities should or should not place on religious activity in particular circumstances. On the other hand, DH affirms man’s obligation towards the true faith.

Multiplices Inter, also listed in the first citation, forbids the publishing of certain works that promoted that doctrine (this document should not be confused with another encyclical of a much later date, but of the same name, condemning freemasonry).

For the last two, DH does not address this issue other than to say generally if one religion is given special recognition by the civil authorities, the rights of everyone must be duly respected. The Catholic religion being the established religion of the state does not mean everyone in the state must be forced to be Catholic or that their false religious activity must be impeded. As Pius XII stated in Ci Riesce:

“Could it be that in certain circumstances He would not give men any mandate, would not impose any duty, and would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false? A look at things as they are gives an affirmative answer…Moreover, God has not given even to human authority such an absolute and universal command in matters of faith and morality. Such a command is unknown to the common convictions of mankind, to Christian conscience, to the sources of Revelation and to the practice of the Church. To omit here other Scriptural texts which are adduced in support of this argument, Christ in the parable of the cockle gives the following advice: let the cockle grow in the field of the world together with the good seed in view of the harvest (cf. Matt. 13:24-30). The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action.”

In regards to separation of the Church and State, there is an authentic separation—as enunciated by Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei:

“The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right.”

But, they are to work together in mutual concord—and agreements like concordats aid in this regard. Both of these citations in the Syllabus refer specifically to the situation in Spain at the time where certain persons were trying to get the practically unanimously Catholic nation to repudiate Catholicism as the state religion and to repudiate their concordat with the Church. St. Anthony Mary Claret’s autobiography describes the great harm to the common good these individuals were doing in Spain when he lived there—it’s a good read that puts these issues in context. Newman, in the work linked to above, also explains # 77 expressly.

Again, it bears repeating that the religious freedom promoted by DH is not absolute or unconditional, but is conditioned on the requirements of the common good in particular places and circumstances (what is condemned in Quanta Cura is the absolute). According to the official relatio, judgments in DH are meant to apply only to particular times and circumstances, it is not meant to mean all states in all times, must have very broad limits to false religious activity. On the other hand, it is a definitive Catholic doctrine that the act of faith must be made freely. As St. Ephrem said, “Not of compulsion is the doctrine; of free-will is the word of life.”
Reply
#7
None of these positions are actually completely accurate.  So I can't vote for either.
Reply
#8
(11-17-2010, 09:54 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(11-17-2010, 01:00 AM)Mixolydian Wrote: Religious freedom is a modernist heresy:

Bl Pope Pius IX Syllabus of Errors:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

No-one has a response for this?--or an attempt to reconcile this with Dignitatis Humanae?

I asked a Roman trained priest friend of mine to reconcile the two. Almost ten years later, I'm still waiting for his answer!  :laughing:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)