Religious Liberty Condemned?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='09 March 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1268170079' post='2069747']
"In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852."

Vatican II seems to contradict these two. I forget the document...dignitatis humane or something.
[/quote]
There's a difference between saying that Catholicism is the official religion and coercing all citizens to be Catholic. Other forms of worship may be excluded as officially recognized or encouraged, but that doesn't mean their followers should be coerced by force of law.

The second quote, I think, is more likely meant to say that Catholic countries should try to maintain their identity and the law should not set itself against that by encouraging other forms of worship. Again, this doesn't mean coercion is morally legitimate.

[mortify]

[quote name='Raphael' date='10 March 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1268232593' post='2070307']
The second quote, I think, is more likely meant to say that Catholic countries should try to maintain their identity and the law should not set itself against that by encouraging other forms of worship. Again, this doesn't mean coercion is morally legitimate.
[/quote]

Can you explain how the Law can preserve the Catholic identity of a State, discourage other forms of worship, and still not be considered "coercive"?



Consider also the following paragraph:


[color="#0000FF"][i][u]Religious communities also have the [color="#FF0000"]right[/color] not to be hindered in their public teaching and [color="#FF0000"][b]witness to their faith[/b][/color][/u], whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.[/i][/color]

DH, Section 4, Paragraph 4


So false religions have a *right* to spread their falsehood? Amazing!

Edited March 11, 2010 by mortify

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='10 March 2010 - 07:49 AM' timestamp='1268232593' post='2070307']
There's a difference between saying that Catholicism is the official religion and coercing all citizens to be Catholic. Other forms of worship may be excluded as officially recognized or encouraged, but that doesn't mean their followers should be coerced by force of law.[/quote]
I think that Pope Benedict XVI touched on this briefly in his encyclical [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html"]Deus est Caritas[/url].

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' date='10 March 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1268269063' post='2070639']
Can you explain how the Law can preserve the Catholic identity of a State, discourage other forms of worship, and still not be considered "coercive"?



Consider also the following paragraph:


[color="#0000FF"][i][u]Religious communities also have the [color="#FF0000"]right[/color] not to be hindered in their public teaching and [color="#FF0000"][b]witness to their faith[/b][/color][/u], whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.[/i][/color]

DH, Section 4, Paragraph 4


So false religions have a *right* to spread their falsehood? Amazing!
[/quote]
What the quote said and how you interpreted it are entirely different and you know it.

All persons have the right not to be coerced =/= all persons have the right to believe as they wish.

[mortify]

[quote name='Raphael' date='10 March 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1268270883' post='2070656']
What the quote said and how you interpreted it are entirely different and you know it.[/quote]

It says non-Catholics have the *right* to [b]witness[/b] to their faith and teach publically. That this is referring to preaching is indicated in the next sentence when it says, "in spreading religious faith..." (it's not the Catholic Faith that's being spread!)

How did you interpret the quote?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' date='10 March 2010 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1268273637' post='2070682']
It says non-Catholics have the *right* to [b]witness[/b] to their faith and teach publically. That this is referring to preaching is indicated in the next sentence when it says, "in spreading religious faith..." (it's not the Catholic Faith that's being spread!)

How did you interpret the quote?
[/quote]

I interpreted it according to what it says. It clearly says that religious communities have the right not to be hindered. That doesn't mean that they have the right to witness, it means that they have the right not to be hindered. There is a moral distinction. It's the same moral distinction made earlier in the document.

"[b]Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered[/b] [i]in their public teaching and witness to their faith[/i], whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others."

[mortify]

[quote name='Raphael' date='10 March 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1268277589' post='2070720']
I interpreted it according to what it says. It clearly says that religious communities have the right not to be hindered. That doesn't mean that they have the right to witness, it means that they have the right not to be hindered. There is a moral distinction. It's the same moral distinction made earlier in the document.[/quote]

It is the same thing, ultimately.

By not hindering, a right to freely preach non-Catholicism is granted. The reality is error has no right to voice itself publically, the State is fully just in suppressing its spread, and doing so would hardly be coercion to Catholicism. Many a Catholic Kingdom had large numbers of non-Catholic subjects, these groups practiced their faith according to their ways, but this doesn't mean they were permitted to spread their faith among Catholics.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' date='10 March 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1268282283' post='2070740']
It is the same thing, ultimately.

By not hindering, a right to freely preach non-Catholicism is granted. The reality is error has no right to voice itself publically, the State is fully just in suppressing its spread, and doing so would hardly be coercion to Catholicism. Many a Catholic Kingdom had large numbers of non-Catholic subjects, these groups practiced their faith according to their ways, but this doesn't mean they were permitted to spread their faith among Catholics.
[/quote]
It's not the same thing, unless you're a consequentialist. The consequences appear the same, but there is an enormous difference between the object of the act of supporting a pseudo-right to believe whatever you want and the object of the act of condemning coercion to follow an unwanted belief. The two positions are entirely different, morally speaking, no matter how much they may seem to achieve the same consequences.

I insist that all people ought to worship the one, true God, but because true worship may only exist in a will that is free, I must advocate that we have a society where worship is free. This does not mean that I'm an advocate of the abuse of that freedom; on the contrary, I will support Catholicism and I think they state should support it, but enforcing it removes the ability for worship to be free, and therefore is unacceptable. It would keep Catholics, as well as others, from worshiping freely.

[mortify]

[quote name='Raphael' date='11 March 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1268284967' post='2070756']
It's not the same thing, unless you're a consequentialist. The consequences appear the same, but there is an enormous difference between the object of the act of supporting a pseudo-right to believe whatever you want and the object of the act of condemning coercion to follow an unwanted belief. The two positions are entirely different, morally speaking, no matter how much they may seem to achieve the same consequences.[/quote]

I'm glad you bring up consequences because the consequences [i]are[/i] the same. But even the causes leading up the consequence are the same, since not hindering non-Catholic preaching is the same as saying they can freely preach, the difference is in perspective, one negative the other positive.

To me the document's position is similar to a Catholic Politician saying they personally disagree with abortion but will permit a woman's right to choose. Is there a huge moral difference between this position and the one that is explicitly in support of abortion? I don't think so. If something is wrong it has no right to exist, let alone be an option. And so if you believe people have a moral obligation to be Catholic, and error doesn't have a "right" to spread itself, then you must support the State's right to suppress error and defend truth.

However you want to put it, has the Church ever said error has a **right** not to be hindered?

[quote]I will support Catholicism and I think they state should support it, but enforcing it removes the ability for worship to be free, and therefore is unacceptable.[/quote]

How can the State support Catholicism without appearing coercive?

[mortify]

Raphael, this condemned statement from the OP is worth repeating:

[color="#0000FF"]"[b]Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the [color="#FF0000"]public exercise[/color] of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.[/b] [/color]

Edited March 12, 2010 by mortify

[Veridicus]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' date='11 March 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1268361584' post='2071469']
I'm glad you bring up consequences because the consequences [i]are[/i] the same. But even the causes leading up the consequence are the same, since not hindering non-Catholic preaching is the same as saying they can freely preach, the difference is in perspective, one negative the other positive.[/quote]

All persons have the moral obligation to follow the Gospel to the degree that they are aware of its truth. The nature of authentic worship and love requires that man is free, because love requires freedom. Therefore, all governments have the obligation to provide an environment free of coercion in religious matters. A person who is coerced into loving God does not love God at all. The object of the act in question is to remove coercion that keeps man from being free, the intention is to allow man to love and worship God freely. There are two possible effects. One effect is good, namely, that people will more freely love and worship God. The other effect is bad, namely, that people will abuse their freedom to turn away from God. The principle of double effect may be used here. The good effect is as immediate as the bad, the object and intention of the act are both good, the circumstances provide no alternative (the only other way to keep society Catholic is coercion, which would require a morally bad act).

There's a huge difference between removing coercion so that people may have the freedom to do what is right, even if they abuse that freedom, and telling people they are free to do what is wrong. The first of these God did in the Garden of Eden (the punishment was not imposed arbitrarily, but was a natural consequence of their abuse of freedom; in the same way, the government could promote Christianity and point out the natural consequences of rejecting grace, but could not impose arbitrary punishments, which would be coercion); the second of these would be if God took on the part of Satan and pointed out that they could, in fact, eat from the tree, even though it was forbidden. There is a huge difference, unless you mean to equate God and Satan.

[quote]To me the document's position is similar to a Catholic Politician saying they personally disagree with abortion but will permit a woman's right to choose. Is there a huge moral difference between this position and the one that is explicitly in support of abortion? I don't think so. If something is wrong it has no right to exist, let alone be an option. And so if you believe people have a moral obligation to be Catholic, and error doesn't have a "right" to spread itself, then you must support the State's right to suppress error and defend truth.[/quote]

I support the state's right to speak out against error, but not to coerce the erring. Truth should be preached and practiced by the government, but penalties should not be applied to the erring, especially not to those judged as possessing invincible ignorance. Nonetheless, the state should evangelize. Never did the Apostles attempt to coerce those who would not follow them, they only warned people against their errors and what their errors would result in. This is what separates Christian evangelization from Muslim jihad. Even in Acts 5, Peter is careful to say that the reason those who break with the Christian community must die is that they have lied to the Holy Spirit and death comes from God, not man, in that case. We do not coerce.

As for abortion, if you want to use that analogy, Vatican II made it clear that the stipulation "within due limits" applied. Any religion that would murder is clearly outside of due limits. Those in government and the citizens in general should point out the errors of those who feel that they may separate their beliefs from their moral lives. They may also vote out these sorts of politicians. Making threats that they will not be re-elected is not coercion from the state, but from the voters, and it is not coercion against the politician's beliefs; rather, it is coercion against the fact that the politician's actions and beliefs do not agree, and that makes him dishonest.

[quote]However you want to put it, has the Church ever said error has a **right** not to be hindered?[/quote]

Error must be hindered, but not through the coercion of those in error. "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" (DH 1). The government should propose the truth of the Gospel for the belief of its citizens.

[quote]How can the State support Catholicism without appearing coercive?
[/quote]

Without appearing coercive? I don't know. I'm sure someone will always say it appears coercive. They say that now, even in our secular society. As I said above, the state may preach Catholicism and actively support Catholicism, even to the exclusion of other faiths from public support, but not supporting a person's beliefs is entirely different from coercing him into different beliefs.

[quote name='mortify' date='11 March 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1268366804' post='2071541']
Raphael, this condemned statement from the OP is worth repeating:

[color="#0000FF"]"[b]Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the [color="#FF0000"]public exercise[/color] of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.[/b] [/color]
[/quote]

The words "as a right" are implied by the text. Again, I say that no one has the right to worship as they wish except for Catholics; nonetheless, the right of Catholics to worship freely and the right of all people to worship as Catholics requires that all people be free of coercion. There is no right to practice anything else, but the right not to be coerced so as to love and worship God freely can be abused. Nevertheless, there is no way to discipline abusers without violating the very principle of non-coercion, but the state may preach Catholicism, and therein hope to win them for Christ.

It's a thin line and a middle ground; sometimes, this is where a Catholic must stand if he is to stand with the Church.

[Veridicus]

[mortify]

[quote name='Raphael' date='12 March 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1268454310' post='2072209']
All persons have the moral obligation to follow the Gospel to the degree that they are aware of its truth. The nature of authentic worship and love requires that man is free, because love requires freedom. Therefore, all governments have the obligation to provide an environment free of coercion in religious matters.[/quote]

The essential problem is that you are elevating the rights of man above the rights of God. God is the source of all authority and therefore all authority, including the State, must subject itself to the rule of Christ the King. This includes a duty to uphold the truth and protect people from falsehood, although [b]it does not mean that it can force people into Catholicism[/b], nor does it mean that non-Catholics can't exercise their religious practices [i]to some extent[/i]. It does however mean that a State has the right to hinder and even suppress falsehood, even though it be the free will of men to spread it. Consider the millions of dollars rich Saudis pour into spreading Islamic radicalism in the West, it's creating a situation where the children of moderate Muslim immigrants are radicalized, and the West foolishly permits it because of it's sense of "freedom." Do you really think a Catholic State would be wrong to suppress such activities?

[quote]A person who is coerced into loving God does not love God at all. The object of the act in question is to remove coercion that keeps man from being free, the intention is to allow man to love and worship God freely. There are two possible effects. One effect is good, namely, that people will more freely love and worship God. The other effect is bad, namely, that people will abuse their freedom to turn away from God. The principle of double effect may be used here. The good effect is as immediate as the bad, the object and intention of the act are both good, the circumstances provide no alternative (the only other way to keep society Catholic is coercion, which would require a morally bad act).[/quote]

A society can uphold truth and suppress falsehood without forcing people into Catholicism.

[quote]I support the state's right to speak out against error, but not to coerce the erring. Truth should be preached and practiced by the government, but penalties should not be applied to the erring, especially not to those judged as possessing invincible ignorance. Nonetheless, the state should evangelize. Never did the Apostles attempt to coerce those who would not follow them, they only warned people against their errors and what their errors would result in. This is what separates Christian evangelization from Muslim jihad. Even in Acts 5, Peter is careful to say that the reason those who break with the Christian community must die is that they have lied to the Holy Spirit and death comes from God, not man, in that case. We do not coerce.
[/quote]

I think there's been a misunderstanding, I never supported the idea that people can be coerced into Catholicism. The Church has always forbidden this. What I disagree with is the idea that the erring have a *right* not to be hindered from spreading their errors, the result of which endangers the eternal fate of souls. This is no different than the State speaking up against abortion but not doing anything to close down abortion mills.

[quote]
The words "as a right" are implied by the text. Again, I say that no one has the right to worship as they wish except for Catholics; nonetheless, the right of Catholics to worship freely and the right of all people to worship as Catholics requires that all people be free of coercion. There is no right to practice anything else, but the right not to be coerced so as to love and worship God freely can be abused. Nevertheless, there is no way to discipline abusers without violating the very principle of non-coercion, but the state may preach Catholicism, and therein hope to win them for Christ.[/quote]

So when the Church put the writings of heterodox theologians on the index, she was morally wrong? How about when she excommunicated erring clerics and forbid them to administer and receive the sacraments? And what of the crusade against the Albigensians and the numerous inquisitions? I suppose in all these cases the Church was morally wrong for coercing people against a will they must exercise freely, because to punish might impede their freedom to worship God? Don't you see that by holding the freedom of man to the supreme [i]the worship of God has been impeded[/i]?
[size="3"][i]
[color="#0000FF"]"Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, [color="#FF0000"]conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of [u]indifferentism[/u].[/color] -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. [/color][/i][/size]


Ask yourself how many souls are lost to perdition because this so called "right."

[mortify]

Raphael, consider the following:

[i][color="#0000FF"][size="3"]"[A] 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 "[u]liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right[/u], 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 [color="#FF0000"][u]should be restrained by [b]no[/b] authority[/u] whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by [u]word of mouth[/u], by the [u]press[/u], or in any other way."[/color] 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."[/size][/color][/i]
[b]
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, section 3[/b]

Edited March 14, 2010 by mortify