Recent Synod enshrines Religious Liberty
#31
I thought we were debating what constitutes Catholic doctrine* and principles, not the current state of the world.  In principle, do all men have a strict legal (or moral) right to publicly profess error?  I say, "No."

I'm not saying that the above -- a permission to publicly profess error -- cannot be tolerated, but we shouldn't confuse our terms (e.g., 'toleration' with 'right'), nor compromise doctrine.

* The document under discussion refers explicitly to "the Transmission of the Christian Faith":

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/pres...33_02.html
Reply
#32
You are confounding the issue by confusing terms.  Within a secular world (what we live in - sorry - fact), the term right makes sense.  The synod also discusses the current religious persecution of Christians (please note particularly the areas in red and my subsequent comments in blue):

Proposition 16 : RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
The Synod Fathers reaffirm that religious freedom is a basic human right. This includes the freedom of conscience and also the liberty to freely choose one’s religion. We are in solidarity with our brothers and sisters, in different parts of the world, who are suffering from lack of religious freedom and even persecution. Isn't this precisely what I said: that the bishops were trying to explain the significance of religious liberty in the current political and social climate - responding to persecutions?
In light of the recognition of the Second Vatican Council as an instrument for the New Evangelization and the growing need to protect the religious liberty of Christians throughout the world, the Synod Fathers propose a renewed commitment to and wider diffusion of the teachings of Dignitatis Humanae. This renewal seeks to affirm and promote freedom in religious matters for individuals, families and institutions to protect the common good of all. Such a freedom includes the right to teach the Christian faith without compromise of its tenets to children in the family and/or school.  This seems to speak to the contention that somehow the issue is the inclusion of nonCatholic doctrine being taught in Catholic institutions - something not endorsed here.  What else could be meant by the comment "the right to teach the Christian faith without compromise of its tenets"?
The Synod Fathers propose that the Holy Father consider the opportuneness of establishing a commission of Church leaders representing various parts of the Church throughout the world or entrusting this task to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, to address attacks on religious liberty, and to obtain accurate information for public witness to the fundamental right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience.  So, in short, the church must address attacks on religious liberty throughout the world - regardless of the political context in which they are occurring.  They are attempting to address the real world scenario not some hypothetical Catholic state that does not exist.

We've already addressed the fact that much of this "right" - for lack of a better term - to be free from coercion and practice one's faith is not outlandish nor is it particularly modern.  There is a huge difference between interfaith BS and what is being said here. 
Reply
#33
Dignitatis Humanae goes further than teaching the authentic religious freedom to be Catholic.  Presenting B ("under current circumstances, it's expedient for all to be able to publicly practice their faith") without also presenting A ("true religious freedom is the profession of the Catholic Faith; error has no rights") will lead Catholics and others to believe in a distorted form of B ("religious freedom for error, always and everywhere").

A document on "Transmitting the Catholic Faith" should... transmit the Catholic Faith, and not leave out relevant doctrines which would put currently-accepted circumstances ("religious freedom for all") into a proper context.  The document's citation of Dignitatis Humanae does not clarify the statement, but only aids the confusion.
Reply
#34
(10-31-2012, 11:21 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Dignitatis Humanae goes further than teaching the authentic religious freedom to be Catholic.  Presenting B ("under current circumstances, it's expedient for all to be able to publicly practice their faith") without also presenting A ("true religious freedom is the profession of the Catholic Faith; error has no rights") will lead Catholics and others to believe in a distorted form of B ("religious freedom for error, always and everywhere").

A document on "Transmitting the Catholic Faith" should... transmit the Catholic Faith, and not leave out relevant doctrines which would put currently-accepted circumstances ("religious freedom for all") into a proper context.  The document's citation of Dignitatis Humanae does not clarify the statement, but only aids the confusion.

Ok.  Now I'm confused.

What do you mean by "religious freedom for error, always and everywhere"?  Do you mean that the document in a roundabout way supports a sort of relativist view of religion in which there is no one true faith?  I think that's what you are saying . . .  If so, I think I finally get it.  But, is that the implication of statements in Dignitatis Humanae or an outright statement from the text?  Is it poor phrasing or intentional?  I ask because I regularly go to war with my parents over this one.  They keep saying that there is no one right path to salvation and I keep asking them "what the hell is the point of believing at all then?".  I've got three kids so excited about Halloween that I am having a hard time getting them to focus and don't have time to read all of DH, so I'm hoping you will forgive my ignorance and help me out here. 
Reply
#35
Oh and one more question:

Why is it that everyone is so up in arms about addressing the "real world" context of these documents?  I am confused by this.  We can't read these texts in a vacuum since they are responding at once to each other and to the social/political circumstances of the world around them.  A document like Dignitatis Humanae seems to be a very secularly minded work - one that addresses a specific context.  Is it wrong to read it within that context?  Why?
Reply
#36
Fontevrault,
I am saying that without restating Catholic teaching, Catholics may become confused as to what's meant by "the liberty to freely choose one's religion."  This is true only if it's restricted to mean "the liberty to become and profess the true religion," but false if given a broader meaning.  The document doesn't make this important distinction, and the same problem is present in Dignitatis Humanae, which asserts the "God-given right" to profess and propagate error in public (cf. n. 3).  It is not a specific, context-sensitive document, but rather it states: "Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society" (n. 1).

The Catechism, thankfully, teaches that man doesn't have a moral right to error, but it also -- without a precise qualification -- states that men have a "natural right" to publicly profess error.  So, it's confusing and ambiguous.

I'll respond again later.
Reply
#37
(10-31-2012, 01:08 PM)Fontevrault Wrote: Oh and one more question:

Why is it that everyone is so up in arms about addressing the "real world" context of these documents?  I am confused by this.  We can't read these texts in a vacuum since they are responding at once to each other and to the social/political circumstances of the world around them.  A document like Dignitatis Humanae seems to be a very secularly minded work - one that addresses a specific context.  Is it wrong to read it within that context?  Why?

Should the Church teach and profess what is best for society and what is the best way of society or compromise to the present temporary times and teach things that only work in this way of society? We are to achieve and uphold the Ideal State, not settle for this sewage government and society. The real debate is how to lead these lost souls back to ideal states, Vat II took an gradualistic model that tries to work within the present framework of society to reform it, the early Church guided society to the ideal state by enduring persecution, professing the unflinching truth and stand as a complete antithesis to men's idea of religion and state.

More to the point of the present "reality," there is nothing real about this present world; as long as it ignores the light of the Church, it shall always remain in illusion and darkness to it's inevitable death. This will not endure though, if you think Christ is going to sit this out then you have been ignoring the constant message of our Queen in her apparitions, we will see the King administrate His Justice upon this veil world soon enough.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)