Religious Liberty
#11
(07-23-2012, 03:12 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(07-23-2012, 12:25 PM)Walty Wrote: The only thing that has a right to exist is truth. 

But not every means is permitted to repress it or to spread the truth (we're not followers of Muhammed), and not all licit means are licit for all people . The ordinary means to be used is preaching and the example of good and holy living, not by forcibly depriving others of their liberty(cf. Paul III, Sublimus Dei). 

This is how I understand the Church's perenniel doctrine on religious liberty (the links I attached above flesh a lot of this out with citations, etc.):
God has created man so that his faith should be a free act,  aided by grace.
--The Church's sphere is the spiritual, and she may coerce those subject to her jurisdiction (ie the baptized) in matters of faith and morals with both spiritual and temporal means (cf. 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canons 1311 and 1312). The Church may coerce, because by being baptized, one consents to it.
--The state's sphere is the temporal, and it may therefore coerce people in matters related to the natural law and matters of reason, but ordinarily not matters of faith.  Therefore, a man can correctly be said to have a right before the state to religious liberty, if said "right" refers only to the direct relationship between man and the state (the state in and of itself), and not in the metaphysical sense relating to God or man's moral obligations. 
--If those who wield the temporal power are subjects of the Church, the Church may choose to delegate her power to use temporal coercion in matters of faith against the baptized to the temporal power to act as her arm.
--The state has a general authority to defend the common good, and may therefore coerce even religious matters as the common good requires (as such, the limits imposed in this way are provisional and will vary depending on the circumstances.

You've explained this (interesting and rather compelling) interpretation of DH before. I'm under the impression, however, that this interpretation originated in an academic paper from the last couple of years and isn't really connected to the intent of the pope and bishops who promulgated the document. Do you know of any evidence that (any of the) bishops (including the pope) at Vatican II would have held such an interpretation of the document they were promulgating?
Reply
#12
Quote:You've explained this (interesting and rather compelling) interpretation of DH before. I'm under the impression, however, that this interpretation originated in an academic paper from the last couple of years and isn't really connected to the intent of the pope and bishops who promulgated the document. Do you know of any evidence that (any of the) bishops (including the pope) at Vatican II would have held such an interpretation of the document they were promulgating?

Indeed.

The interpretation of Paul VI, John Paul II, and now Benedict XVI, is what matters. Does Saint Sebastian's and e.g. the Rev. Dr. Brian Harrison's interpretation agree with that? Or, is it simply their interpretation and attempts at a reconciliation?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)