Neo-Catholics Should Celebrate Satanists' Religious Freedom
#1
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.ph...o-dialogue


Dozens of Christian protesters gathered in Detroit, Michigan, on Saturday to denounce the unveiling of a bronze nine-foot, one-ton goat-headed statue of Satan called the Baphomet monument.

The statue was presented by the Satanic Temple, an organization "dedicated to Satanic practice and the promotion of Satanic rights," at an undisclosed location in the city as a security measure. The Satanic Temple kept the site of the unveiling of the huge statue secret, e-mailing the information only to members of the group and others who were previously given tickets to witness the occasion, according to Raw Story.

Different Neo-Catholic commentators have decried this event, most notably Michael Voris of ChurchMilitant.com. Yet these same Neo-Catholics fully support the “religious freedom” championed by Vatican II, and also support the ecumenical initiatives of the post-Conciliar popes. Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae,states:

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. 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.

…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.

So why then aren’t the Neo-Catholics obeying Vatican II? Instead of protesting the Satanists, they should instead be celebrating their right to religious liberty! For Vatican II declares that Satanists have a right “to be immune from coercion on the part individuals, or of social groups, and of any human power” (including Neo-Catholic protestors) so that they are not forced to act in public a manner contrary to their own beliefs. Why instead are the Neo-Catholics trying to coerce these poor Satanists into repudiating their beliefs and shut down the public expression of their religion? As for a “just public order” being observed, the Satanists are breaking no civil laws, they are simply unveiling their satanic goat statue in private. The Satanists are not causing wars or riots. In fact, the only thing close to disrupting of the public order is the media event caused in large part by the protest of Neo-Catholics and Protestants.

Further, it was none other than Pope Benedict XVI who, in a December 2005 address given to the Roman Curia, stated:

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience.

So why are the Neo-Catholics opposed to these Satanists professing their faith when the martyrs of the early Church died so that they may do so? Are they in opposition to Vatican II AND Pope Benedict? After all, seeing how zealously Neo-Catholics cite Pope Benedict’s side-note that the SSPX clergy possess “no legitimate ministry” as near infallible doctrine, you would think they would pay even more respect to this pontiff’s solemn expounding on the text of an Ecumenical Council.

Vatican II: Satanists Worship the One God?

assissi
Further, Vatican II teaches us that non-Christian religions still worship the one God, though they get a lot of things about him very wrong. For example, as neo-catholic apologist Tim Staples states, the Koran teaches:

Women are inferior to men (Sura 4:34)
Men can, and even should, ‘beat’ their wives in some circumstances (Sura 4:34).
Belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is false (Sura 4:157-159).
Belief in the divinity of Christ is blasphemy (Sura 5:72).
Belief in Jesus Christ as ‘the Son of God’ is grave error (Sura 19:35; 10:68).
Muslims are commanded to ‘fight against’ Christians and all who disagree with them. Sura 9:29 says:
Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

God wills moral as well as physical evil. In fact, Sura 37:94 says, ‘He [Allah] created you as well as what you do,’ whether good or evil
‘God does not love the unbelievers’ (Sura 3:32).
Yet, regarding the Muslims, Lumen Gentium states:

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

Also regarding the Hindus, who believe in multiple gods, Nostra Aetate states (emphasis added):

Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.

Further, in a 1985 address to the Leaders and Representatives of the Islamic and Hindu Communities in Kenya, St. John Paul II stated:

The close bonds linking our respective religions - our worship of God and the spiritual values we hold in esteem - motivate us to become fraternal allies in service to the human family…

…We are all children of the same God, members of the great family of man. And our religions have a special role to fulfil in curbing these evils and in forging bonds of trust and fellowship. God’s will is that those who worship him, even if not united in the same worship, would nevertheless be united in brotherhood and in common service for the good of all.

Thus even the worship of the abstract Hindu notion of “God” found among multiple deities and strange pagan practices is considered by Vatican II and St. John Paul II to be worshipping the true God.

So, couldn’t the same be said for those Satanists who consider Satan a deity? For, the Neo-Catholic argument goes, there is objectively only one true God. Therefore, all who believe in a Supreme Being and worship Him, are, objectively worshipping the one true God. Thus Satanists, even if they subjectively get a lot of things wrong about God, like the Muslims and Hindus, really worship the true God, whether they know it or not. Thus, in the words of St. John Paul II, neo-catholics should “be united in brotherhood” with Satanists and “in common service for the good of all.”

Enviro-Ecumenism with Satanists

Green Devil

One path where Neo-Catholics can work together with Satanists has already been forged by Pope Francis. On June 17th, Francis appointed Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. According to churchmilitant.com:

Schellnhuber was chosen to be one among four speakers to talk at the roll-out of the Pope's global warming encyclical Thursday, and is said to have helped draft the encyclical [Laudato Si].

He's a controversial appointee because, in addition to being a radical promoter of the theory of man-made climate change, he is an atheist and an advocate of population control. He once said the carrying capacity of the earth is less than one billion; considering the earth currently holds more than seven billion people, this would mean he favors the reduction of the vast majority of mankind.

Thus, if Francis is already working “in common service for the good of all” with an atheist calling for the extermination of six billion people, how can Neo-Catholics not follow their own pope’s example and work with Satanists for the common good? After all, the Satanists, unlike the pro-aborts, have at least publicly pledged they will not sacrifice people or animals.

In fact, as it turns out, the Church of Satan is already environmentally friendly and primed for Neo-Catholic outreach! Echoing Laudato Si’s call for a police force to punish environmental crimes and the favoring the idea that man has no right to dominate the earth, The Church of Satan’s website states:

We would be pleased to see the institution of an elite police force, of men and women in peak physical and mental condition, trained in advanced techniques of crime fighting who would be truly equipped to handle the vermin that make so many of our cities into little more than concrete jungles. Man is by nature a social creature and makes his social contract with his fellows, thus rules of conduct are established to allow maximum freedom for individuals to interact. Disobey those rules and punishment must be swift and sure, and most probably public as well. This does not mean the incarceration of individuals in institutions at the expense of the victims for so called rehabilitation. No, these criminals must be put to some use, perhaps as forced labor to even clean up the environment that has so carelessly been soiled under the dominance of Christian spiritual philosophy that sees man as superior to other living creatures with a God-given right to abuse them at will.

Further, an informational article on Satanism and the Environment concludes:

The tenets of Satanism are geared naturally towards environmentalism, although whether or not individual Satanists draw these conclusions or act on them is entirely a personal matter, the religion or philosophy of Satanism has an implicit direction towards environmental protectionism. Short-term energy usage at the expense of long-term planetary health is irresponsible, it harms our children and it is stupid. These run against the 6th Satanic Statement (responsibility to the responsible), the 11th Satanic Rule of the Earth (do not harm children), and the cardinal Satanic Sin (stupidity). It is Satan's personified will that we remain powerful and intelligent (the Prometheus mentality) and we simply can't do that on a crippled planet.

Plus, since Pope Francis addressed Laudato Si not just to Catholics, or even to Christians, but to every living human being on planet earth, he has already, in effect, started the ecumenical dialogue with Satanists. Just imagine the good that could be done if Neo-Catholics join with Satanists to bring their collective used soda cans to the recycling center. In addition to working together to save the planet, the drive (or bicycle ride) will provide Neo-Catholics and Satanists a chance for “dialogue” and “encounter” so that they may truly come to mutual understanding with each other. This in turn will surely pave the way for future peace and progress.

In addition, I think a great way for Pope Francis to start the ball rolling in this regard is to kiss a Satanic bible. After all, Francis recently kissed a heretical Waldensian bible, and St. John Paul once famously kissed a Koran. As Neo-Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin tells us, this was completely acceptable:

1) The Quran does contain some elements of truth (as well as grave elements of falsehood) and he might have wanted to honor the elements of truth it contains.

2) Showing respect in this way could foster world peace and interreligious harmony.

Indeed, if Francis would only kiss the Satanic bible it would signal to the Satanists that the Pope is: honoring whatever truths are found in said “bible,” recognizing that the Satanists are “on a journey” with us to find truth, and fostering good will. Inevitable “world peace” and “interreligious harmony” would then quickly ensue.

jpii koran

On second thought, since he’s closer to the action, perhaps the Archbishop of Detroit, His Excellency Allen H. Vigneron, might want to take the lead on this dialogue. Archbishop Vigneron is a prime candidate as:

1) His archdiocesan website has no mention of the Satanic act in his archdiocese, even though it garnered national news coverage. Thus he must not see the raising of a one ton Satanic goat statue in his diocese as anything scandalous or out of line with the principles of Vatican II discussed earlier

2) The Archbishop’s website does, however, have an entire webpage devoted to Laudato Si where one can read it, download it, and buy it, as well as read the Archbishop’s “full statement” on it.

3.) The Archbishop is busy preparing his guest homily when he will be the featured speaker at the local schismatic Greek Orthodox church on Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos in August.

Thus, one can only imagine the ecumenical progress that could be made if the Archbishop would use Laudato Si as a common starting point for Satanic dialogue. One can just picture the smiling faces of Paul VI and John Paul II looking down upon the Archbishop as he visits the Satanic goat head statue and passes out copies of Laudato Si to those of his separated brethren reveling around the demon Baphomet. Who knows what fruitful and promising dialogue will then ensue regarding greenhouse gases, the extinction of species, and the evils of unfettered capitalism between the Archbishop and the followers of Lucifer.

In addition, since the Archbishop already has no problems giving a homily at a schismatic church, why not offer to be a guest speaker in attendance at the Satanists’ next Black Mass? After all, the sin of scandal will certainly be avoided. Indeed, if this event should occur, what promethean neo-pelagian could possibly think that the Archbishop of Detroit would be praying with the Satanists? Obviously, the Archbishop would be praying to God at the Black Mass while simply standing alongside the Satanists. Of course, per Vatican II, the Satanists would also objectively be worshipping “the one God” in their own unique and incomplete way, though they would not be consciously aware of it.

The Absurdity of Neo-Catholicism

Yes, dear readers, this is the kind of madness Neo-Catholicism logically leads us to. For “religious liberty” by its very nature, protects the public expression of error and renders the state powerless to stop it. Thus we see the state completely impotent to do anything against private and public displays of atheism and Satanism. Do we truly believe that the early Christian martyrs died for a right to commit public blasphemy? Is this in turn what Christ died for? Did Our Lord will an agnostic state completely separated in all aspects from His Church and Truth? Did He will for the state to be absolutely powerless to protect its citizens from the most outrageous sacrilege, error, and heresy? Taken to its logical end we can now see clearly why, in Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX penned the following words:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

In addition, Neo-Catholicism leads us to the madness of ecumenism. Once the principle is established that the Church should find “the good” in all religious belief and strive to work towards common earthly goals with heretics, apostates, pagans, and now even atheists, the Great Commission goes out the window. We then become nothing more than implicit condoners of error, satisfied to leave our fellow man in states of soul ranging from abject ignorance to stubbornly believing lies. It is this very madness that St. Pius X railed against inNotre Charge Apostolique. I now leave you with his words:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.




Reply
#2
Religious liberty is the freedom to profess the truth not the worship of evil.
Reply
#3
First, for better or worse, I don't see anyone trying to coerce them. Decrying something and coercing someone are two different things.

Second, this article grossly misunderstands Catholic doctrine on various points.  The right to be free from coercion is not unlimited.  The state can repress false religious activity if the common good requires--this is what is meant by the due limits tied to the just public order and to the state's "guardianship of public morality" referenced by Dignitatis Humanae.  The CCC elaborates:

CCC Wrote: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

The opposite--an absolute liberty--is what Quanta Cura definitively condemned and called insanity.

Note, the common good includes the spiritual well-being of society as well:

CCC Wrote:1925 The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.

St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris Wrote:57. In this connection, We would draw the attention of Our own sons to the fact that the common good is something which affects the needs of the whole man, body and soul. That, then, is the sort of good which rulers of States must take suitable measure to ensure. They must respect the hierarchy of values, and aim at achieving the spiritual as well as the material prosperity of their subjects.(42)

58. These principles are clearly contained in that passage in Our encyclical Mater et Magistra where We emphasized that the common good "must take account of all those social conditions which favor the full development of human personality.(43)

59. Consisting, as he does, of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness. Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.(44)

Likewise, worshiping something other than God comes within the bounds of "the objective moral order" or public morality since this is a matter of natural reason, not a matter of revelation.  This is why the virtue of religion, defined as offering God the adoration due to Him as first principle and creator of all things falls under natural justice. It is a moral virtue rather than a theological one (see CCC 1807). It also does not require faith, which is believing God's revelation on His authority. 

Equating the adoration of God by Muslims--who, even if they do not have the theological virtue of faith, clearly profess the aesity of God and intend to worship God, the first principle and creator of all--and the adoration of Satan, a created being, is erroneous. The latter is idolatry, the former is not.  (I know less about Hinduism, but I have seen it argued that they do adore one principle being with aesity who created all, alongside their pantheon of other less beings--as St. Thomas noted in his commentary on John, it is possible to adore the one God along side other gods).

Dignitatis Humanae, for its purposes, defines religious acts as those directed to God:

DH Wrote: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.

This point is notable because various theologians of the past said the state could not coerce Jews or Muslims, but could idolators, since this disorder was not within the supernatural sphere.  For example, here is how the Counter-Reformation era theologian Francisco Suarez (who influenced a large branch of Thomism) explained it:

Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III Wrote:St. Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God.
---

As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate them.

St. Gregory addressed himself clearly to this problem regarding Jews, and he forbade anyone to deprive them of their synagogues or to prevent them from observing their religious practices therein. (Lib. I Epistol. 34) Elsewhere he reaffirmed that no one should prevent Jews from participating in their religious observances. (Lib. II. Ep. 15) The reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.

I think, therefore, public displays of Satanism do not need to be tolerated. First, under a common good analysis, it can be argued that Satanism is spiritually harmful and it would cause little harm to suppress it.  Likewise, in a community that is still generally Christian, public displays honoring their chief enemy would be a source of societal strife harmful to the common good.  Finally, public displays of idolatry--ie worship other than God--is contrary to the objective moral order and may therefore be suppressed under the state's role as guardian of public morality.

The argument for these public displays to be tolerated would have to demonstrate that it would do more harm than good to suppress them, maybe for example drawing undue attention to them or creating disproportionate or unnecessary ill-will towards the Church from a de facto pluralistic and mutually tolerant society. 

As an aside, this article reminded me of the old "Society of Saint Pius I" parody that criticized "neo-trad St. Jerome" for engaging in dialogue with Luciferians .
Reply
#4
(07-29-2015, 12:10 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Second, this article grossly misunderstands Catholic doctrine on various points. 

The Remnant going off half-cocked about something?  Say it ain't so!
Reply
#5
Error has no rights. Satanism, Atheism, Islam, Hinduism are all errors.

The state has an obligation to recognize the one true faith and suppress all public expression of error.

The only condition whereby error may be tolerated is where suppressing the error causes greater evils than tolerating it (causing wars, etc.).

This is the Traditional teaching of the Church, upheld by Pope after Pope.

By this standard, the state, in the current situation, recognizing the Catholic Faith as true, would have a moral obligation to stop the public expression of not only Satanism, but all other false religions.

Under the novel model proposed by John Courtney Murray, DH, et. al., Satanists have a moral right based on their human dignity to publicly profess their satanic religion which is held in conscience. The new agnostic state must ensure this "right." The only way the right may be limited is if public order is disrupted and whether or not the public order is disrupted is left to the agnostic state to decide. A few Christian protestors of a statue is hardly disrupting the public order in the modern state's view.

Also, this new teaching sees the Satanists practicing their religion in conscience as part of the common good as they are exercising their innate human rights. As long as the Satanists commit to no bodily harm, which these have pledged not to, their immoral teachings are no worse than mainline Protestant teachings on divorce, contraception, abortion, and homosexuality. The only difference is that they worship a deity (in their view) which Christians identify as being at odds with their "deity." So what? Since the state is no longer bound to profess Catholic Truth, that is irrelevant. The "moral good" cannot include spiritual good in the proper sense or else all false religions should be suppressed as they all lead to Hell. Thus, the suppressing of Satanism under the new DH paradigm would be considered unnecessary state coercion and infringement on these Satanists' human rights.   
Reply
#6
The Catholic doctrine on religious liberty is not a moral right to do something, but the right to be free from coercion within the limits of the common good, which will vary according to the circumstances.  Just because one person or entity does not have the right to coerce you in some particular circumstances, does not mean what you are doing is therefore not objectively a sin. 

The state does not have absolute authority over man's soul and conscience.  Man stands alone before God, not together with public authority, when being judged. The duty of eradicating error and the means to do so were given by Christ to the Church: "Go therefore and teach all nations..." 

This is why Leo XIII taught:

Leo XIII, Immortale Dei Wrote:Hence, it is the Church, and not the State, that is to be man's guide to heaven. It is to the Church that God has assigned the charge of seeing to, and legislating for, all that concerns religion; of  teaching all nations; of spreading the Christian faith as widely as possible; in short, of administering freely and without hindrance, in accordance with her own judgment, all matters that fall within its competence.

Civil authority, on the other hand, exists by the will of God solely for the common good (“The attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities.” Pacem in Terris 54).  This is its “orbit,” the “fixed limits within which it is contained.”(cf. Immortale Dei 13).

It’s authority to coercively impede religious error is derivative of this general purpose. It does not have authority above and beyond this to coerce in religious matters, just as a private person generally does not (except over his own children.)  Unless the common good were at stake, civil authority does not have the right to coercively impede even the public erroneous religious actions of its subjects.  It would be overstepping its bounds and reason for existing.

It is because of man’s dignity (laid out by DH as including his duties and obligations to God and to religious truth, his free will, and his personal responsibility before God, including the outward manifestations that naturally result from these things) that the civil power cannot go further.  The state does not have an absolute power over man.  It has its place, and man’s free will has its.

This does not mean of course that public authorities will automatically do what they should or adopt sound principles, etc.  Also, just to reiterate, the public order is not to be conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner, ie a manner which is based on indifferentism and denies man's supernatural end (see CCC 2108 to 2019, also 2015 and 2244). But, while the Church has always taught this spiritual dimension to the common good, it has never taught that the common good always requires the suppression of false religious activity, even if wars wouldn't result.

But as I said before, the conclusions of this article simply do not follow from Catholic doctrine.
Reply
#7
There has for some time been a tendency in Catholic thought to attempt to subvert "competing" authorities--such as the state or the family--out of a misguided belief that doing so will grant the Church uncontested domination of society. I think this tendency has to be resisted. Moreover, we ought to recognize that this tendency is not inherent to Catholic thought, but rather a result of a clericalism that emerged out of medieval struggles with the Emperor and other Christian rulers combined with ultramontanism and an opportunistic acceptance of liberal humanitarianism that has had nothing but ill effects. Traditionalist Catholicism, perhaps, could make some real claim to a contribution to the Church and Christendom if it were to recover the view of Christian society held by non-clericalist Christians during the Middle Ages and late antiquity. After everything that has happened, we really ought to give the ghibellines another look.   
Reply
#8
http://www.novusordowatch.org/sede_50.htm#.VbofX0UpCEk

"One of the biggest "achievements" of [Vatican II] was the endorsement of a supposed moral right to religious liberty, whose principal author, the infamous Jesuit Fr. John Courtney Murray -- appointed an "expert" by John XXIII to the council -- had been censured (!) in 1954 by the Holy Office for erroneous views on Church-state relations. Vatican II claims:

This Vatican Council ... professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

[...]

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.

(Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, par. 1-2)


Whereas the true traditional Catholic doctrine is as follows:

When religion is manifested by external acts and, in a special manner, by a cult or rite, the ecclesiastical and civil authorities have the right and duty to prohibit those acts which are harmful to the social good.

[...]

Consequently, the error of Catholic Liberals is deservedly condemned, because they contend that full liberty is to be given to everyone and that error is to be repressed only by an exposition of truth.

[...]

...if we posit the fact that the good of society demands that the various kinds of divine worship enjoy the same serenity as the true religion, then what today is called freedom of conscience and of worship can be tolerated.

    Therefore, the Roman Pontiffs do not absolutely condemn these freedoms; but they do forbid that these liberties be considered as rights which must be granted to error or to false religion.


(A. Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, par. 280.d; 281.a.2; 281.b.2)


We note that what before the council was a right of the Church and the state, namely, to repress external manifestations of false religions insofar as the social good requires, has now been shifted to being a right of the individual which is only restricted by certain undefined "due limits" on the part of the Church and state. In other words, the truth has been turned on its head. No longer does the state have the right per se to repress external manifestations of false religions; now the right per se is with the individual to practice false religions, and that right is merely given certain "limits." This is a total inversion of truth. The only reason the Church and state may repress the external acts of false religions is because individuals do not have a right to practice them externally, whereas the Church and state have a right to repress them. At best, then, the Church and state tolerate the external expressions of false religions for the good of society. Certainly, at this point in 2008, the good of society here in the United States of America would require that the external manifestations of false religions be tolerated until a more opportune time when the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ can be established.

On occasion an argument is made that Pope Pius XI taught religious liberty in his German encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge in 1937. In response to this objection, consider the following answer to a question given by Fr. Francis Connell, the great American theologian and fellow-anti-modernist associate of Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton:

Question: In the English version of the Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, sent by Pope Pius XI to the German bishops on March 14, 1937, we read: "The believer has an inalienable right to profess his faith and to put it into practice in the manner suited to him." Could not one conclude from this that no matter what religion a person may profess he has a genuine natural right to practice it, without being molested or impeded?

Answer [by Fr. Connell]: If Pope Pius XI meant to teach what our questioner concludes from his statement, he certainly departed from traditional Catholic belief and from the clear teaching of his predecessor, Pope Pius IX, who condemned the proposition: "Everyone is free to accept and to profess that religion which, under the guidance of the light of reason, he has judged to be true" ([Denzinger], 1715). It is incredible that Pope Pius XI intended to teach a doctrine so utterly at variance with Catholic tradition -- a doctrine, moreover, which would lead to the strange conclusion that a person has an inalienable right to be wrong.

            The only reasonable interpretation of the Pope's words is that he was speaking of the inalienable right of Catholics to profess and to practice their faith in the manner suited to their religious needs. It must be remembered that the Pope was denouncing the Nazi government for its restrictions on the Catholic Church, so that it was most natural that he should proclaim the right of the Catholic to practice his religion. It should be remembered, too, that our English word "believer" is not an adequate translation of "Der glaubige Mensch," as used in a papal document. This latter phrase is the equivalent of the Latin "fidelis," which in the language of the Church normally means "one who has the Catholic faith." Similarly, the word "Christian," when used in the Church's official statements, does not, at least not ordinarily, signify anyone who accepts Christ as his religious leader, as the word does nowadays in our land. A Christian, in the language of the Church, means, at least ordinarily, a Catholic.

―Rev. Francis J. Connell, Father Connell Answers Moral Questions, ed. by Rev. Eugene K. Weitzel (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1959), pp. 2-3

Now, lest anyone should say that just as Pope Pius XI could be misunderstood in his encyclical, so Vatican II was misunderstood, let it be remembered how the New Church has implemented its decree on religious liberty and forced Catholic countries, such as Spain and Colombia, to change their constitutions so as to bring them in line with the new and erroneous teaching, requiring them to permit the public exercise of false religions, thereby denying their right (!) to repress the external acts of false religions, which true Catholic teaching concedes to the state, switching, instead, the right to the "human person" even if restricting it by nebulous "due limits." (It is important to understand that the "due limits" clause does nothing to save Vatican II from error -- a right that is given limits is nevertheless still a right. Just as a husband has conjugal rights over his wife, and these rights are restricted by certain reasonable limits, yet at the same time they remain genuine rights on his part -- they are just not absolute.)"
Reply
#9
(07-30-2015, 09:03 AM)hbaldauf Wrote: Whereas the true traditional Catholic doctrine is as follows:

When religion is manifested by external acts and, in a special manner, by a cult or rite, the ecclesiastical and civil authorities have the right and duty to prohibit those acts which are harmful to the social good.

Consequently, the error of Catholic Liberals is deservedly condemned, because they contend that full liberty is to be given to everyone and that error is to be repressed only by an exposition of truth.

[...]

...if we posit the fact that the good of society demands that the various kinds of divine worship enjoy the same serenity as the true religion, then what today is called freedom of conscience and of worship can be tolerated.

    Therefore, the Roman Pontiffs do not absolutely condemn these freedoms; but they do forbid that these liberties be considered as rights which must be granted to error or to false religion.

(A. Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, par. 280.d; 281.a.2; 281.b.2)

I don't see how this is different than what I posted before.  This is all summed up in CCC 2109.  The only potential point of confusion I can see is with use of the term "right." 

As your source mentions, the Church has had no problem with the defined scope of state authority in this regard as the Church still teaches, but some past Popes forbade calling the resulting freedom a "right."  However, the reason for this is that this term during the 19th century controversies and resulting regimes contained the metaphysical and moral connotations that were at the heart of those controversies at that time--the moral right to err.  Some anticlerical states claimed for themselves the right to make a judgment on this plane and in fact did so, proclaiming such a right on the basis of man's inability to know religious truth with certainty, the supremacy of natural reason, and a positivist and naturalist view of law and public order.

Furthermore, the Church's focus at that time was on the state's rights and authority in this area, since these were what were denied by the Liberals by their positing of various false and exaggerated rights.

Vatican II's focus is primarily on the rights of the individual, which were being oppressed in various places, especially the Communist bloc.  It strictly frames this right, not as the moral right to profess any religion, which was rejected previously by the Church, but as a limited right to freedom from the coercion of the state (and other private individuals) within the bounds of the common good. In that time period, the greater problem was public authority going beyond the bounds of its rightful authority with regards to religion, arbitrarily suppressing such manifestations even when it was not harmful to an objective notion of the common good.

hbaldauf Wrote:We note that what before the council was a right of the Church and the state, namely, to repress external manifestations of false religions insofar as the social good requires, has now been shifted to being a right of the individual which is only restricted by certain undefined "due limits" on the part of the Church and state. In other words, the truth has been turned on its head. No longer does the state have the right per se to repress external manifestations of false religions; now the right per se is with the individual to practice false religions, and that right is merely given certain "limits." This is a total inversion of truth. The only reason the Church and state may repress the external acts of false religions is because individuals do not have a right to practice them externally, whereas the Church and state have a right to repress them. At best, then, the Church and state tolerate the external expressions of false religions for the good of society. Certainly, at this point in 2008, the good of society here in the United States of America would require that the external manifestations of false religions be tolerated until a more opportune time when the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ can be established.

The due limits are not undefined.  Again, see CCC 2109.  It should also be noted that the Church claims for herself an innate and proper right to coerce her offending members (see Canon Law 1311). As I demonstrated in earlier posts, the state, on the other hand, does not have a "right per se" like the Church has to repress such manifestations.  Pius XII in the address Ci Riesce affirmatively answered the question whether in some circumstances, God "does not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false?" To say the state has the same innate authority as the Church in matters religious is to confuse the two powers.  Rather, "Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right." (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 13).

As I showed earlier, public authority exists by the will of God solely for the common good.  It's right to repress false religious activity is a derivative of it's authority with respect to the common good and therefore is limited by the same scope of authority.  Just because it is justified in doing so in some circumstances, does not mean it has the innate authority to do so in any or all circumstances.

Finally, the forcible suppression of all or public false religious activity is not a necessary component of the Social Kingship of Christ.  As Pius XII notes in Ci Riesce, God Himself could repress all such falsehood but He chooses not to.  What the Kingship of Christ does require is that He freely reign in the hearts of all citizens and that public authority rule in a manner consonant with His rule---or, as Vatican II teaches,  "that the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city" (Gaudium et Spes 43) and infused "into the mentality, customs, laws, and structures of the community" (Apostolicam Actuositatem 13).  Christ Himself taught by both word and example the means of replacing darkness and error with truth and light and establishing His reign in the hearts of all men, whether subjects or rulers, individuals or societies. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)