Do There Exist "enemies Of The Church"?

[Basilisa Marie]

Since we're talking documents, here's the whole snippet from Dignitatus Humanae
 

 

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.

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.

2. 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.(2) 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.

 

Church teaching doesn't reject a Catholic state, and it follows logically that a perfect world would be one in which everyone were Catholic. But the Church also believes that a government cannot coerce people to become Catholic (or any other religion, for that matter, partly because you can't coerce people to convert and mostly because other religions are wrong). Democracy on a grand scale really isn't a Catholic virtue, and hasn't been since the first few centuries when bishops were still elected. Plus before America, the Church only really flourished in places where the throne and altar really were intertwined, since like the time of Constantine.  But DH does go on to say:

 

 

Government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will. (6)

If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.

Finally, government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens.

It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community. All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community.

 

So basically, even in a Catholic state, you'd still have religious freedom in nearly the same way as it is practiced in America.  The fact that they call this a development of doctrine in the first snippet I quoted signals to me that they recognize that this is a shift how we understand how to carry out our obligation to pursue truth, our freedom to pursue truth, and how the Church relates to the state. 

Edited June 2, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[mortify ii]

Some food for thought: must a Catholic state permit the publication and distribution of Wahhabist literature? 

[Maggyie]

No, a confessional state is not precluded so to speak.

Here is what the church teaches about freedom of religion.

2. 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.(2) 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.

... If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.

In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm.

... The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family. All nations are coming into even closer unity. Men of different cultures and religions are being brought together in closer relationships. There is a growing consciousness of the personal responsibility that every man has. All this is evident. Consequently, in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society.

There are a ton of examples, but I feel I'm being hypocritical in doing a document dump. If you're confused about the Church's acceptance of democracy as legitimate I'd refer you to Centesimus Annus, which again I don't really want to reproduce.

If you're unaware of the tremendous earthquake this development of doctrine caused in Catholic theology - if you don't know the bitter history of how this issue came to be addressed at the Council, with the parties fighting tooth and nail over the development you believe never occurred - If you can't see the revolution in approach when comparing these words to those of the 19th century reaction - I don't know what to tell you.

[mortify ii]

:bananahi:

 

Hi Maggie

[Maggyie]

Ha Basalisa you beat me to it!

Mortify I'm so glad you're not associated with Jew or synagogue bashing. The phrase "synagogue of satan" isn't used very much, except by radical traditionalists and the like, for that purpose. So to avoid confusion I would encourage you to choose different terms in the future.

[mortify ii]

Ha Basalisa you beat me to it!

Mortify I'm so glad you're not associated with Jew or synagogue bashing. The phrase "synagogue of satan" isn't used very much, except by radical traditionalists and the like, for that purpose. So to avoid confusion I would encourage you to choose different terms in the future.

 

Actually you suggested I was referring to a racist piece of literature when I was simply using a phrase from scripture. Why your first instinct was to think I was referring to a racist book and not Holy Writ, I do not know  :unsure:

[Perigrina]

There are a ton of examples, but I feel I'm being hypocritical in doing a document dump. If you're confused about the Church's acceptance of democracy as legitimate I'd refer you to Centesimus Annus, which again I don't really want to reproduce.

If you're unaware of the tremendous earthquake this development of doctrine caused in Catholic theology - if you don't know the bitter history of how this issue came to be addressed at the Council, with the parties fighting tooth and nail over the development you believe never occurred - If you can't see the revolution in approach when comparing these words to those of the 19th century reaction - I don't know what to tell you.

Since the "document dump" was quoting the document that I previously linked to and recommended as essential reading for discussing this topic, I'm not sure what your point was. Anyhow, I will address your other comments.

 

I have not questioned that the Church teaches that democracy can be a legitimate form of government.  You claimed that the Church teaches that democracy is important.  I do not see how you get this idea from Church teaching.  I cannot think of anything that suggests that.

 

This is how I would summarize Church teaching on democracy:  Democracy at its best is a good form of government.  In practice, democracy often has serious flaws that need to be changed in order for it to achieve its ideal form.
 

Nor have I denied that there has been development in doctrine.  I fairly explicitly affirmed its existence.  What I denied is that the basic principles of Catholic doctrine can change. 

 

Pope Benedict, reflecting on the 40th anniversary of the Council, gave some important guidelines on how to interpret it in this address: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

 

The question arises:  Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

 

Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

 

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

 

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

 

I recommend that people read the entire passage.  Later in it Pope Benedict explicitly addresses how we should understand the Council's teaching on religious freedom among other things:

 

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

 

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

 

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

 

The passage continues and is all worth reading, but I wish to focus on the need to make distinctions between contingent circumstances and unchanging basic principles.  We need to think in terms of continuity rather than of rupture.  Even using the word "revolution" as you have above is problematic in light of this principle.  

[Credo in Deum]

 

Seriously. Better a Church Father(s), Doctor(s), Pope(s), or Saint's words, than my own.

 

 

[mortify ii]

Democracy is a poor form of government according to Aristotle

[Lilllabettt]

Women are made to be ruled according to Aristotle. 

[MIKolbe]

He was also a cubs fan...

 

so yeah.

[Credo in Deum]

I thought he was a Tennessee Titans fan?   

 

 

[mortify ii]

Women are made to be ruled according to Aristotle.

Source?

[MIKolbe]

I think she's saying the source was Aristotle...

[PhuturePriest]

Women are made to be ruled according to Aristotle. 

 

He was right: they are.

Women as well as men are made to be ruled by God.

 

Bazinga.