Recent Synod enshrines Religious Liberty
#21
Dear friend,

I no longer have the patience or composure to debate religious liberty on this board, after doing so for several months, and I hope Link or Dylan can respond to you in full. That said, your approach is simply misguided. No one has to be forced to convert, but this does not mean they have a right to profess heresy, or Buddhism. Pope Pius XII did not live in a distribu-monarchical Candyland; in 1953, he said in Ci Riesce:
"It must be clearly affirmed that no human authority, no State, no Community of States, of whatever religious character, can give a positive mandate or a positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good... Whatever does not respond to truth and the moral law has objectively no right to existence, nor to propaganda, nor to action."

I think it would be best to refrain from "we live in the real world" comments. That's the same thing people say about chastity. They're gonna do it any way, so let 'em.

I exhort you to read what Mirari Vos and the Syllabus say on religious liberty, and take a look at this thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...=3452646.0

God bless.
Reply
#22
(10-31-2012, 02:26 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Dear friend,

I no longer have the patience or composure to debate religious liberty on this board, after doing so for several months, and I hope Link or Dylan can respond to you in full. That said, your approach is simply misguided. No one has to be forced to convert, but this does not mean they have a right to profess heresy, or Buddhism. Pope Pius XII did not live in a distribu-monarchical Candyland; in 1953, he said in Ci Riesce:
"It must be clearly affirmed that no human authority, no State, no Community of States, of whatever religious character, can give a positive mandate or a positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good... Whatever does not respond to truth and the moral law has objectively no right to existence, nor to propaganda, nor to action."

I think it would be best to refrain from "we live in the real world" comments. That's the same thing people say about chastity. They're gonna do it any way, so let 'em.

I exhort you to read what Mirari Vos and the Syllabus say on religious liberty, and take a look at this thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...=3452646.0

God bless.

perhaps you should read this instead: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/l...ecnum=8768

You're not even arguing a papal position, be it Gregory's or Pius...

You can't latch on to a particular word without examining what it meant in its usage, versus what it means now. That's exactly how people took Vatican II into the insane-o-sphere. You're arguing nothing more than the 'Spirit of Mirari Vos' and missing the boat entirely.

Of course, there is also the rebutting position:
(pt1) http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature...iberty.pdf
(pt2) http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature...erty_2.pdf

I'd challenge you to find your position expressed in any of the 3 and explain it with quotes to better explain your position without your own words.
Reply
#23
Subscribed to read in detail later.
Reply
#24
As far as I know, no one on either side of the debate about, say, Dignitatis Humanae, argues that the state can justly coerce someone into believing any religion, even the true one.  Certain groups of Muslims do believe this, of course, which is the problem being addressed here.  If the state, as a matter of justice, cannot coerce in this matter, why can a person not be said to have a right to be free from such coercion?

A right to err in the metaphysical sense (as in one can do so before God without consequence) is of course wrong, but I don't think that is what is being said here.  That's the right that has always been opposed, not in the sense of a freedom from the state's coercion in this matter.
Reply
#25
It might be helpful if we could have clarity over whether Dignitatis Humanae provides only freedom of coercion in matters of what faith he professes, or if it also mandates a public secular regime. The vast majority of bishops of the Church plainly believe the latter to be the case, by their words and deeds. From the letter of the text, however, if some majority Catholic country were to draft a new constitution in 2013 that required public officials to be professed Catholics, would this be squared with DH?

I think the defenders of DH do well in defending its judgment of coercion, but to me the idea that an intrinsically neutral secular regime is an ecumenical teaching is monstrous. From my reading, it does not - explicitly - and thus you could square a hypothetical constitution that I mentioned above with it.

However, the plain meaning of paragraph 4, for example, seems to me to strongly prohibit any efforts such as the Swiss law to ban the construction of Islamic minarets in their towns.

Reply
#26
The freedom not to be coerced into publicly professing Catholicism is not also a freedom to publicly profess falsehood.  The third option here is that men are free to privately profess their errors, but may not do so in public: the result is that they'd profess nothing in public.  Under certain circumstances (i.e. the needs of the common good), the Catholic state has both the right and the duty to repress error.  No one then can claim to have a strict (civil) right to publicly profess falsehood, if it be just and necessary to repress such errors under certain circumstances.
Reply
#27
(10-31-2012, 07:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The freedom not to be coerced into publicly professing Catholicism is not also a freedom to publicly profess falsehood.  The third option here is that men are free to privately profess their errors, but may not do so in public: the result is that they'd profess nothing in public.  Under certain circumstances (i.e. the needs of the common good), the Catholic state has both the right and the duty to repress error.  No one then can claim to have a strict (civil) right to publicly profess falsehood, if it be just and necessary to repress such errors under certain circumstances.

Exactly, and still there is mo human RIGHT to profess error in private


From phone
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
#28
Very true, Mithrandylan, but I've assumed that everyone here agrees with the Catechism, which teaches that there is no "moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error" (n. 2108.).
Reply
#29
(10-31-2012, 07:48 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The freedom not to be coerced into publicly professing Catholicism is not also a freedom to publicly profess falsehood.  The third option here is that men are free to privately profess their errors, but may not do so in public: the result is that they'd profess nothing in public.  Under certain circumstances (i.e. the needs of the common good), the Catholic state has both the right and the duty to repress error.  No one then can claim to have a strict (civil) right to publicly profess falsehood, if it be just and necessary to repress such errors under certain circumstances.

But the vast majority of the world is not a Catholic state.  Therefore such an assertion is meaningless for most Catholics.  These rhetorical volleys that have no relevance in the world we live in or in the circumstances under which most Christians are persecuted are utterly meaningless.
Reply
#30
(10-31-2012, 08:27 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Very true, Mithrandylan, but I've assumed that everyone here agrees with the Catechism, which teaches that there is no "moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error" (n. 2108.).

I'm with you on this one. 

I think the key issue here is whether or not we are discussing a truly Catholic state or looking at a more realistic view of the world. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)