Rights and Religious Liberty
#41
(04-13-2020, 11:37 AM)Adventus Wrote: Ok, so we can tolerate error, so long as it’s not public.

No.

For a proportionate reason even public error can be tolerated. The State possess the right to tolerate if the common good is better achieved, and as you suggest St Augustine is in support of the idea that we cannot rid ourselves of all error, even all public errors, without impeding the good. (Cf. He also makes this comment on the Parable of the Tares and the Wheat, in which we cannot rip out all of the evil, lest we also possibly tear out the good, too).

So the Catholic teaching is that error, even public, may be tolerated, and the State where a sufficiently grave reason exists has the right to tolerate public error.

What does not exist, and never could exist is that one who is publicly erring has right to be tolerated.

The reason being is that this would mean that in fact it is not toleration, but a right to act in an evil manner, and then the State could punish no error or crime. The whole fabric of the State protecting the common good falls apart if people who are in public error have the right to remain in that error. There is, then, only an arbitrary difference between practicing a false religion publicly and murder, without any foundation.

If the State, however, has the duty to the common good which includes preventing public error, but also has the right to decide in certain cases that particular errors are impossible to remove without harm to the common good, then it can decide not to prosecute or persecute, and instead to tolerate, but that does not mean that the person has the right to be tolerated.

Women who seek abortion are murderers. This evil ought to be prosecuted, but no one advocates this and rather advocates prosecuting the providers, because we recognize that a greater harm to the common good would come by prosecuting women who obtain abortions. We tolerate their evil, understanding that the outcome is likely to be better by another tact. It does not mean that women have the right to abortions or to be unfettered or not prosecuted for seeking one out. It means that we have simply decided not to prosecute.

The same could be said for minor drug use/possession. A small amount may be better to tolerate or merely cite, rather than prosecuting every possible case.

If it works for moral evil, then it has to also apply to religion and erroneous religions as well. The problem is an agnostic/secular state, which cannot judge which is the True Religion. But a State that professes the True Religion would have a duty to try to eliminate false religious practice in public, and when this is imprudent, it would have the right to tolerate the false religious practices, or allow them in a limited way, etc. That does not confer a right to toleration on the false religion any more than tolerance of drugs or women seeking abortion gives the drug user or woman a right to be tolerated.

And, in fact, even though foreign to the modern mind, false religious practice is far more harmful than abortion or drugs, so, a fortiori, if these later criminals have no right to be tolerated in their crimes, neither could a false religion which can destroy souls.

(04-13-2020, 11:37 AM)Adventus Wrote: I also brought this up because fellow SSPXers dismiss the Council entirely and because of it's pastoral nature and so therefore can say it is in complete error with no way of wedding the past with V2.

Well the SSPX itself does not "dismiss the Council entirely".

However, the SSPX itself does say that this teaching on Religious Liberty is an error and incompatible with the past teaching, because it is easily shown to be. The best who have attempted to show a continuity, such as Fr Brian Harrison, have always failed to do so. I mention him because he makes that distinction above about the "right to be tolerated" and while the rest of his arguments are very good about showing how there is a wide berth in the practices of Catholic States, so perhaps some degree of religious liberty afforded, and that the Church was fine with this, his whole thesis fails on this distinction of the right to tolerate (which exists for States) and the right to be tolerated (which is logically impossible, and the Church has not only never taught, but condemned).
Reply
#42
Hot off the press.

Reply
#43
(04-24-2020, 11:23 AM)Adventus Wrote: Hot off the press.

[youtube]

Pink's thesis is interesting, but the main problem I have always found with it, at least without a detailed study of the 65-page presentation of it, is that is a solution looking for a problem.

It starts with the notion that DH must be in continuity and so go looking for how it possibly could be so.

Problems with this approach :

  • That we have to take a conciliar document and painstakingly try to search out how to make it fit tradition is already a bad start and wholly novel; this was never needed with Trent or Vatican I;
  • The architects of the document and schema (Cardinal Bea and John Courtney Murray) were very clear that the notion they were trying to present was contrary to previous teachings, and afterward were clear in pushing this notion;
  • DH was the replacement for a schema presented by Cardinal Ottaviani at the beginning of the council which expressed the traditional doctrine on tolerance of false religions (called De Tolerentia) and if one reads DH and it side by side, it is very clear that extremely different concepts are being discussed and proposed, so the liberals pushed a replacement of a document which did teach the traditional notion, to substitute one which did not teach this, but at best claims to be in continuity with it.
  • The phrase quoted by Tim Gordon "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ" was ironically demanded by Archbishop Lefebvre and the Coetus to try to save the document from heresy by directly and openly contradicting Quanta Cura.

Further, though a real analysis of Pink's argument and rebuttal is needed, so perhaps my objection is answered, I think his approach is a non sequitur. I would summarize his argument thus:

Major : The traditional relationship between Church and State has been defined by the two Swords doctrine in which the State is incompetent in matters that belong to the Church—that is in religion,

minor : but if the State were to interfere with the practice of religion, by forcing one to accept a particular religion, or by prohibiting the practice of religion, except where civil disorder would result, this would be to exceed its power.

Therefore, the State cannot force a particular religion or prohibit the practice of any religion.

He effectively equivocates on "religion". In the first part of the argument he means "the True Religion" because that is the domain of the Church in which the State cannot interfere. Then he switches the suppositio of "religion" to mean any religious practice, true or false (which is not the domain of the Church).

As a result the conclusion does not follow, and that makes sense. Whose duty is it to see that false religions are not propagated? Is that the duty of the Church to enforce such things? It never has been before, aside from identifying errors and condemning them, but then leaving it to the State to enforce and punish, precisely because by such excommunication or condemnation, she removes the person from her protection.

We can see that his argument also has some issues when it comes to then explaining how it was that the State historically did enforce decisions of the Church in religious matters. For instance the Roman Emperors after 313 often enforced conciliar or Papal decisions. Pink's answer is that they did this as Baptized Christians, not as Emperors or rulers, which is farcical. Firstly Constantine was not baptized when doing much of this, and secondly, it was always clear that the Church expected them as rulers to enforce these. The alternative is that any Christian could enforce these on others which certainly is not admissible.

Another issue is that the Pope Leo XIII (Immortale Dei) and Pius IX (Quanta Cura) very clearly taught that there was a mutual relationship between the secular concept of the State and complete religious liberty for all religions. It was not merely that a secular state needed to be agnostic or atheistic, but that the false doctrine on religious liberty naturally demanded a secular, not a Catholic state. For instance in Immortale Dei, Leo XIII writes (emphasis mine) :


Quote:And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all. From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment of each one's conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks.


So given these condemnations it seems impossible to suggest that somehow religious liberty and the agnosticism of the State as proposed by Pink are in keeping with Leo XIII's teaching on the State and social order.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Fionnchu, jovan66102, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#44
MM,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll come and respond to your critiques and give it the attention it deserves.

I do think this is one of the better responses I've heard even if it does sound forced or inclined to explain away. That tends to happen with something that has been a thorn on everyone's side for a while now. In the same way that we all carry with our presuppositions and biases with us. No one is immune from this.
Reply
#45
MM,

I initially wanted to respond with a long-detailed response, but my immune system has taken a beating for a week now and I cannot seem to gather my thoughts full so allow me to respond in sections if you don’t mind. Your initial point sounds like you are saying that it’s a solution…. looking for how it possibly could be so”…..and then continue to note it requires an extensive search to find the answer. It is the heresy hidden in the ambiguity approach. Such an approach need not to be doubted and is certainly warranted. Movements and heresies have been formed where men look, smell, and walk like Catholics and weasel their wording into the Catholic Church. There is no denying this has happened and would concede there was some of that most certainly going on in V2.

 
The problem I see is that most examples I can muster (say Jansenist for example) are of a different kind. The magnitude and level of disagreement on the opposing side to the criticisms of V2 Catholicism is in my eyes quite distinct. Which is why it also gets the level of backlash that it does. This idea that ambiguity should by default be met with hostility and suspicion should not surprise any Orthodox Catholic.
 
It is, however, an entirely different thing that if DH is being unclear rather than being nebulous, whereby it is not just talking about a different thing entirely, but it is meaning something different as well. This is not cloaking or ambiguous. That is not how previous heresies or movements of ambiguity worked. Even IF such attempts by some specified Bishops were clear, it does not at all mean they succeeded in so far as making the contradictory statement they desired. On the one hand, they were very clear in their intentions and the result of it was nebulous? Pope Pius X speaks of perhaps what you may be pointing toward in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis:
 
“It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality, they are quite fixed and steadfast. For this reason, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out their interconnections, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil results.”
 
There is no doubt or hesitation here. They were clear and it does not take any mental gymnastics to see it. It’s not a stretch to have heretics fail in their attempt in DH (not entirely a failure I will add) and simultaneously have weak bishops that resulted in an unclear document.
Reply
#46
For those interested, Dr. Thomas Pink will debate Fr. David Sherry (SSPX) on Vatican 2 on November 16th.

It is supposed to focus in particular to what extent the state, on its own authority, can recognize the Church, implement and enforce what is prescribed.

Which is mostly under DH.
Reply
#47
(08-20-2020, 09:56 AM)Adventus Wrote: For those interested, Dr. Thomas Pink will debate Fr. David Sherry (SSPX) on Vatican 2 on November 16th.

It is supposed to focus in particular to what extent the state, on its own authority, can recognize the Church, implement and enforce what is prescribed.

Which is mostly under DH.

Where will this debate be streamed or otherwise posted online?
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Reply
#48
The Post Conciliar Church no longer condemns error (dogmatically). It's approach is to let error persist, and to let people persist in their errors, hoping that men by their natural reason, will eventually come to see it for error and reject it of their own volition. The book I recommended on another thread (Iota Unum by Romano Amerio goes in detail and lays it out with a bunch of examples, especially from Paul VI).
Reply
#49
(08-20-2020, 12:23 PM)SimplyCatholic333 Wrote: The Post Conciliar Church no longer condemns error (dogmatically).  It's approach is to let error persist, and to let people persist in their errors, hoping that men by their natural reason, will eventually come to see it for error and reject it of their own volition.  The book I recommended on another thread (Iota Unum by Romano Amerio goes in detail and lays it out with a bunch of examples, especially from Paul VI).

So basically Protestantism, then.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
Reply
#50
(08-20-2020, 01:17 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(08-20-2020, 12:23 PM)SimplyCatholic333 Wrote: The Post Conciliar Church no longer condemns error (dogmatically).  It's approach is to let error persist, and to let people persist in their errors, hoping that men by their natural reason, will eventually come to see it for error and reject it of their own volition.  The book I recommended on another thread (Iota Unum by Romano Amerio goes in detail and lays it out with a bunch of examples, especially from Paul VI).

So basically Protestantism, then.

More like secular humanism, with the emphasis being placed on natural reason.  The post conciliar church is more interested in the rational man then the supernatural man.  They seem to have bought into the contemporary notion that these two realities are somehow incompatible with one another.
[-] The following 1 user Likes SimplyCatholic333's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)