Recent Synod enshrines Religious Liberty
#11
Religious Liberty is promoted because then they don't have to have the courage or effort to confront heretics and heresies. PERIOD!
Reply
#12
(10-30-2012, 02:26 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: Was not directed at you, but the absurdity of the synod.

As Phillipus, this is about the word usage of "rights" not free will. But remember, to turn to God freely is only by His Grace and Will working through us to turn to Him. So the freedom of will exercised to do His Will, is His Will and is the height of true freedom since this breaks us from the bondage of sin and uplifts us in the Trinitarian Life.

Sorry.  I misunderstood and thought you were calling me a dirty stinking modernist.   :blush:  Hence, my fiesty reply.

I think we might look at the term "right" and try to find an alternative.  I think the reason for the verbiage is the concept of natural law and Enlightenment terminology found perhaps most notably in the American Constitution and other founding documents.  The problem arises from trying to express a concept in such a way that it can be accepted and understood outside of the religious context we give it.  I do believe that this is intended as a defense of persecuted Christians.
Reply
#13
I think the word you're looking for is ability.

Man has the ability to worship false gods and to curse God and blaspheme, etc.

More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#14
Pope Leo XIII said that a right is a moral faculty. I would say freedom instead of right.
“Right is a moral faculty, and as We have said, and it cannot be too often repeated, it would be absurd to believe that it belongs naturally and without distinction to truth and to lies, to good and to evil.”
Reply
#15
(10-30-2012, 08:43 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Pope Leo XIII said that a right is a moral faculty. I would say freedom instead of right.
“Right is a moral faculty, and as We have said, and it cannot be too often repeated, it would be absurd to believe that it belongs naturally and without distinction to truth and to lies, to good and to evil.”

Yes, but the term "ability" does not denote something that should be permitted or defended by a government.  - This is the issue.  What term will denote not just the ability to do so but also that this is not an ability that the government should infringe upon?  I am not sure I can think of something other than the term right . . .
Reply
#16
(10-30-2012, 08:48 PM)Fontevrault Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 08:43 PM)JMartyr Wrote: Pope Leo XIII said that a right is a moral faculty. I would say freedom instead of right.
“Right is a moral faculty, and as We have said, and it cannot be too often repeated, it would be absurd to believe that it belongs naturally and without distinction to truth and to lies, to good and to evil.”

Yes, but the term "ability" does not denote something that should be permitted or defended by a government.  - This is the issue.  What term will denote not just the ability to do so but also that this is not an ability that the government should infringe upon?  I am not sure I can think of something other than the term right . . .

I'm not sure because I don't think that infidelity to God should be defended by a government  :sneaky:
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#17
This shouldn't be that coercion. No one, including any government power, can coerce others to accept Catholicism, but this doesn't mean that we have a right to religious liberty, as it is in the United States and most of the world.

Nor should one use the "imagine how life would be without religious liberty" line. Yes, it would be unfortunate to live in a State where State Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Islam, or even Atheism meant that the Church had to go underground, but these would simply be errors in fact, whilst religious liberty, or a lack of state religion, in an error in principal.
Reply
#18
(10-30-2012, 09:16 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: This shouldn't be that coercion. No one, including any government power, can coerce others to accept Catholicism, but this doesn't mean that we have a right to religious liberty, as it is in the United States and most of the world.

Nor should one use the "imagine how life would be without religious liberty" line. Yes, it would be unfortunate to live in a State where State Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Islam, or even Atheism meant that the Church had to go underground, but these would simply be errors in fact, whilst religious liberty, or a lack of state religion, in an error in principal.

I think you are making these assertions from a rather cushy vantage point.  You decry religious liberty whilst living under its protections.  Indeed, many fishies accuse the bishops of the US of not defending our rights to the free exercise of religion or at least of doing it poorly.  One of the greatest criticisms of our current president has been the HHS mandate and its infringements on religious liberty and rights of conscience.   

You would rather that Christians be persecuted the world over than ask that a secular state acknowledge each man's ability to worship according to his conscience.  I think this is a strange stance to take since it ignores much of what has come to pass in our own history.  We are no longer living in the 13th century. 

I'm not sure the pope or the bishops have the luxury of so deluded an approach to the Church's position vis-a-vis government.  I think, though I don't know for certain, that the bishops are attempting to frame concepts of free will and the ability to worship in the language of government.  Since the Enlightenment, the idea of natural law and natural rights - inalienable or otherwise - have formed much of the western understanding of government through the concepts of the social contract.  To discuss the issue of Christian persecution without such terminology while appealing to secular governments for protections for their Christian citizens is both foolhardy and futile.  Do you people seriously not think about the ramifications of your assertions and how they will be understood by the world we actually live in? 
Reply
#19
Here is how I understand the issues now. (I have not read all recent posts)

Religious liberty can concern something internal and/or something external. 

Internally, religious liberty might mean free will.  That is something impossible to take away.  But it might also mean a right to think whatever one wants. This could be not only about religion, but about anything; evil men think they have the right to think sinful thoughts.  Above all, thought is free, they say!  But that is not true, because we are accountable to God for our thoughts about anything.  How much more are we accountable for what we think about God and how to worship Him - our religion! There is no right there.  We may be permitted to believe falsehood (when we are learning or inculpably ignorant), but we have no right to do so.

Externally, religious liberty might mean the right not to be coerced to say what one does not believe internally (or possibly to think something because of psychological force, e.g. hypnotism).  I think that is a true right.  But it might also mean the right to practice and promote one's religion publicly.  But that is not a right, but something it is sometimes wise for the Church to tolerate.

The concern with Vatican II is that it supports the internal right to think whatever you want about religion, and the external right to practice and promote your religion publicly.  Neither of these is a right.  An example of the first so-called right is seen in not trying to convert people any more (and in ecumenism in general).  An example of the second so-called right is seen in the abolition of the Catholic state (e.g. Spain), and also in the inclusion of non-Catholic indoctrination in so-called Catholic schools.
Reply
#20
(10-30-2012, 09:16 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: This shouldn't be that coercion. No one, including any government power, can coerce others to accept Catholicism, but this doesn't mean that we have a right to religious liberty, as it is in the United States and most of the world.

Nor should one use the "imagine how life would be without religious liberty" line. Yes, it would be unfortunate to live in a State where State Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Islam, or even Atheism meant that the Church had to go underground, but these would simply be errors in fact, whilst religious liberty, or a lack of state religion, in an error in principal.

If one cannot coerce, nor be coerced, then how do you define the lack of coercion other than liberty to choose a false religion; aka religious liberty? They possess the ability to choose something other than Catholicism, thus they possess the liberty to choose something other than Catholicism. This liberty, protected by the state, lest it coerce, becomes a civil right.

You're arguing against coercion, yet providing no way to guarantee non-coercion without effectively having the state step in. You currently reside in the US, right? You then possess two choices for a state model: coercion to a false religion (thus going underground), or no coercion at all via no state religion.

Fantasy-land theology is useless.  We live in the real world.

ETA: you possess two choices: 1) leave the country and go where Catholicism is the state religion (which basically means not a damn thing at this point) 2) breed out the Protestants and everyone else; take over the country (the muslim model). You also have a third option which is more likely a scenario: deal with it and philosophize on the interwebz about some distributist-monarchist-ad orientem fantasy land.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)