Teachings Contrary to Tradition? Religious Liberty
#51
(02-03-2012, 12:28 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I would like to ask of those who are on the other side of this from the Vatican 2 understanding ... I'm not phrasing this well.  But I am wondering, what do you support?

Do you support Catholic monarchies, explicit public Catholic presence in schools, and so on?  Because that all sounds good.

But should we jail non-Catholics?  Deport them?  Should heresy be punishable by the state?  I have trouble with those ideas.

1. I support a strong Catholic monarchy or, if that's not possible, a strong Catholic republic.
2. In such a state that recognises Christ as its King, it's obvious that only Catholics can teach and hold public office.
3. Non-catholics can live in the state as protected minorities, that much is certain. The toleration of non-Catholics is a matter of prudence. Of course, it would also be lawful to expell them all if deemed necessary or desirable.
4. Heresy and blasphemy can be civil crimes but that's just a matter of prudence as well. I believe they should be, along with desecration of hosts, although I personally dislike the death sentence for heretics.
Reply
#52
(02-03-2012, 02:10 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:Catholic countries, like Spain and Portugal, that still existed in Europe in the 60's were forced by the Vatican diplomacy to drop Roman Catholicism as the official religion of the state after Vatican II. That's all the "development" you need to know.

This is an error of administration, not an error that per se points to anything wrong with the doctrinal development. It may be a sign that the teaching was in some degree of error, but on the other hand it may also mean that the Vatican diplomats themselves didn't know the correct interpretation of the Council's teaching.

Of course, no-one knew. It's a gnostic teaching to this very day.
Reply
#53
(02-03-2012, 02:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:28 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I would like to ask of those who are on the other side of this from the Vatican 2 understanding ... I'm not phrasing this well.  But I am wondering, what do you support?

Do you support Catholic monarchies, explicit public Catholic presence in schools, and so on?  Because that all sounds good.

But should we jail non-Catholics?  Deport them?  Should heresy be punishable by the state?  I have trouble with those ideas.

1. I support a strong Catholic monarchy or, if that's not possible, a strong Catholic republic.
2. In such a state that recognises Christ as its King, it's obvious that only Catholics can teach and hold public office.
3. Non-catholics can live in the state as protected minorities, that much is certain. The toleration of non-Catholics is a matter of prudence. Of course, it would also be lawful to expell them all if deemed necessary or desirable.
4. Heresy and blasphemy can be civil crimes but that's just a matter of prudence as well. I believe they should be, along with desecration of hosts, although I personally dislike the death sentence for heretics.

I have a tough time with punishing heresy and blasphemy, but I can totally get behind imprisonment for serious sacrilege like desecration of the Host.
Reply
#54
(02-03-2012, 02:19 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 02:12 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:28 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: I would like to ask of those who are on the other side of this from the Vatican 2 understanding ... I'm not phrasing this well.  But I am wondering, what do you support?

Do you support Catholic monarchies, explicit public Catholic presence in schools, and so on?  Because that all sounds good.

But should we jail non-Catholics?  Deport them?  Should heresy be punishable by the state?  I have trouble with those ideas.

1. I support a strong Catholic monarchy or, if that's not possible, a strong Catholic republic.
2. In such a state that recognises Christ as its King, it's obvious that only Catholics can teach and hold public office.
3. Non-catholics can live in the state as protected minorities, that much is certain. The toleration of non-Catholics is a matter of prudence. Of course, it would also be lawful to expell them all if deemed necessary or desirable.
4. Heresy and blasphemy can be civil crimes but that's just a matter of prudence as well. I believe they should be, along with desecration of hosts, although I personally dislike the death sentence for heretics.

I have a tough time with punishing heresy and blasphemy, but I can totally get behind imprisonment for serious sacrilege like desecration of the Host.

Theft and desecration of hosts was punishable by death in Portugal until the liberal revolution of the 1830's. God cannot be mocked.

Punishing heresy and blasphemy is understandable once you realise how much poisonous they are to the social fabric of a Catholic society. While I think that the death penalty is to be avoided in those cases, a certain punishment is still advisable. Imprisonment and fine, if nothing else. Deportation could be envisaged too.
Reply
#55
Quote:Of course, no-one knew. It's a gnostic teaching to this very day.

Oh bother. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's gnostic. The Church has clarified it several times since the Council in a matter that suggests that DH is compatible with different forms of government, including a Catholic state. The document itself envisions a Catholic state in some cases (DH 6#3). Clearly the diplomats were just plan wrong about what the Council was suggesting.
Reply
#56
(02-03-2012, 02:01 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:Vatican 2 doesn't allow this, it gives error rights and essentially forbids the use of 'coercion' which would be required to make the above effective

No -- I don't think so. a) It recognizes rights of people in error, but not rights to the error. b) While it does declare immunity from coercion as a natural right, it does not immediately presuppose that this right would be absolute under every circumstance. In American parlance, you might say you have a fundamental right to free speech, but you still can't yell fire in a crowded room.

However, as with other natural rights, the best situation is when they are exercised universally. At first it seems contradictory to suggest that the best possible government is one that recognizes an absolute immunity from coercion in religious belief. But when you pair this with the previous teaching that the best possible government is one of absolute unity of Faith, it makes sense, because if everyone in the world is Catholic, then they would have an absolute right to immunity from coercion on the part of the state, because they would all be subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, whose ability to coerce is not in question.


Actually I am afraid Vatican 2 goes much further than that

'2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that 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.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

3. Further light is shed on the subject if one considers that the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal, objective and universal-whereby God orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever more fully the truth that is unchanging. Wherefore every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means.

Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth.

Moreover, as the truth is discovered, it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it.

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.

There is a further consideration. The religious acts whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.

4. The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties
.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.

In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.
'


It proposes, inter alia, that:

1)Men are to be free from all coercion whatsoever in their pursuit of their truth,
2)That even if they do not seek the truth and completely fail in their obligation they are still to be free from any and all coercion
3)That no one can be forced to act against their beliefs 'within due limits' which it fails to define
4)That religious communities should not be hindered in their public teaching and witness to the faith
5)That men should be able to freely hold religious meetings and organisations according to their faith
6) That religious communities should not be hindered 'in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties'
7)That the above should be enshrined in the law

This is tantamount to carte blanche freedom of religion and ambigous wording nor the appearance of 'due limits' or 'public order' does not help matters as it is unclear what these limits are, where the 'due limits' and 'public order' clauses apply, to what degree and so on. These clauses are therefore for all intents and purposes worthless.

Quote:I also think you need to be careful in your wording, not for being too conservative, but being too liberal. You seem to be suggesting that the rights of the Church come from the State, when it is the other way around (even with regard to civil privileges). It is the Catholic leaders obligation to the Faith that obliges State intervention in the case of a Catholic State, not that the State is granting anything special to the Church.

I cannot see where anyone would get that idea from  ???

The leaders obligation to the faith, whether the leader is Catholic or not, obliges state intervention, intervention which will be according to the concordat concluded between church and state, that is the normal and time honoured way of doing things.

Reply
#57
I'll take these one by one:

1. Where does it say this, especially the "their" truth part? The document doesn't contain a single instance of "their truth" that I can find. That would be an acknowledgement of relativism which would be a very serious problem indeed. In fact, when it does say the right continues to exist in those who don't seek THE truth, it caveats with "provided that just public order be observed."

2. No, they are free up to the point of "just public order" which I would argue is not specifically defined because it is variable based on the prudential judgement of the ruler and the situation of the state. This is the constant teaching on this subject.

3. Again, "due limits" are variable based on the situation of the state.

4. Again, with the caveat of "just public order" -- public order emphasizing again that it varies based on the composition of that public order. Note here the phrase "Honor the Supreme Being" within their obligations -- this means that a "religion" which is contrary to natural reason can always be suppressed, since it could never perform this function.

5. Up to a point. If you have unity of Faith, though, these same groups will also likely be also anarchists, which the government would still have a right to suppress on that basis.

6. False religions were allowed to do this well before the Council even in Catholic states.

7. All matters of natural law should be enshrined in law. If indeed there is a natural law right to immunity from coercion, then like the other matters of natural law, it OUGHT to be made a legal obligation -- just like the legal definition of marriage as defined by the natural law.

Here is further clarification from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:2104 "All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it."26 This duty derives from "the very dignity of the human person."27 It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for different religions which frequently "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,"28 nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians "to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith."29

2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36

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

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

Reply
#58
(02-03-2012, 03:16 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: 6. False religions were allowed to do this well before the Council even in Catholic states.

From what I have been reading, an obligation for religious liberty was acknowledged before the Council, but it was based on the situation and the Church's teaching on tolerance.  The Council seems to have added a different basis for religious liberty: "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."

Was this idea ever applied like this before?
Reply
#59
(02-03-2012, 02:30 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:Of course, no-one knew. It's a gnostic teaching to this very day.

Oh bother. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's gnostic. The Church has clarified it several times since the Council in a matter that suggests that DH is compatible with different forms of government, including a Catholic state. The document itself envisions a Catholic state in some cases (DH 6#3). Clearly the diplomats were just plan wrong about what the Council was suggesting.

And apparently Rome didn't know it any better too since she let those things happen everywhere. It's not like she stepped in and shouted: "Hey, you're getting it wrong!"

Again, this whole line of reasoning has a gnostic flavour to it. Only the initiate know what are the true teachings regarding the relationship between Church and state. What had been made explicitly clear throughout centuries of Christendom, as such that any peasant knew that it was the responsibily of kings and the state to protect orthodoxy and punish dissenters, suddenly became a cloudy object of perpetual clarifications and contradictions for the past 40 years. So much so that even Rome herself didn't know any better and pressured Spain and Portugal to drop Roman Catholicism as the official religion of the state in accordance with the directives of the council! What a mess...
Reply
#60
(02-03-2012, 03:16 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: 6. False religions were allowed to do this well before the Council even in Catholic states.

This was merely tolerated in some circumstances a conditione. Protestants and Jews had no fundamental right to worship freely and erect temples unhindered. The state had every right to suppress them or even expell them, as it happened several times throughout the centuries.

Nowadays, according to the mind of the Council, they have an inalienable right to do those things. Error now has positive rights to exist, something unheard of!




Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)