Official Religion

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1204013' date='Feb 24 2007, 04:51 PM']This is the position of Islam is Saudi Arabia, which position is, IMHO, correctly decried by the West. What's next? A police force for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, as in Saudi Arabia? When something starts to look like the Taliban or Saudi Arabia, it stinks, again, IMHO.

Catholicism should stand on its own merits because the Catholic Church is the steward of the truth of Jesus Christ, not because it's propped up by the State.[/quote]


Can you find church documents to support this? or is it just your opinion?

the following is condemned by Pius IX:

[quote]55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.[/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='philosobrat' post='1204201' date='Feb 24 2007, 07:07 PM']I do not know what it means because I cannot read it in context.

Now cut out these childish games and just say what you think it means.[/quote]

I don't think you understand what the Syllabus of Errors is. It's not a book. Each of those numbers don't mean verses. It is a list of 80 anathamatized errors. Each error can be taken straight out of the document without having to quote the errors above and below it.

If you want to see the text go here:
[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm[/url]

The condemned errors I based this poll on were Errors 77, 78 and 79.

[quote name='The Syllabus of Errors condemned by Bl. Pius IX']77. 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.

78. 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.

79. 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, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.[/quote]

77 means: "'Today, it isn't advisable that Catholicism should be the only official State religion.' is a condemned and proscibed error."
78 means: "'Immigrants coming into Catholic countries from non-Catholic countries should be allowed to publicly practice their non-Catholic religion.' is a condemned and proscribed error."
79 means: "'It's a lie that people being to allowed to practice whatever religion they want and everyone being allowed to say whatever they want will make it easier to corrupt the people's morals and minds and spread indifferentism.' is a condemned and proscribed error."


[quote]Do you wish to say that Peter contradicts himself or would you rather say that you misunderstand him?[/quote]
I think [i]you[/i] misunderstand him.

Edited February 25, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b][center]15. Can Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty be reconciled with Tradition?[/center][/b]
[quote][b][u]Patron[/u][/b]: [b]John, there is a lot of debate on Vatican II’s document Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty) and whether it can be reconciled with Tradition. The document appears to go beyond what the pre-conciliar popes have taught regarding religious freedom. For example, DH says: “This Vatican Synod 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 in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits..[/b][/quote]This suggests that someone can publicly teach error, and no pope has ever made such a statement. Can you please provide me your comments?

[b][u]J. Salza[/u][/b]: The fact that volumes have been written evaluating whether DH is compatible with tradition demonstrates that the document is prima facie ambiguous, if not problematic. Never before in the history of the Catholic Church has a conciliar document caused so much angst and confusion. That being said, any attempts to reconcile DH with pre-conciliar teaching must ultimately be resolved by the pope who is our final authority on earth. In light of the foregoing, I will respond to your inquiry.

The first part of this declaration can be easily squared with traditional Catholic teaching. The council says religious freedom “means that all men are to be immune from coercion” in acting against their own beliefs. The Church has always taught that man cannot be coerced to believe against his will. For example, [b]Leo III[/b] in [i]Immortale Dei [/i](1885) said that “[u][b]No one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for as St. Augustine reminds us, Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will.” DH is simply reasserting the obvious[/b][/u]."

The second part of the declaration, which presumably recognizes a person’s right to publicly teach error, also can be harmonized with traditional Catholic teaching, but admittedly with more difficulty. First, as the council will later clarify, it is referring only to the civil, but not moral, right to religious freedom. DH never says that a person has the moral right to teach error in public. The Catechism affirms that such freedom is not a license to adhere to error (CCC 2108). I address this in Masonry Unmasked, pages 40-42. Second, even within the realm of the civil right, such freedom has limitations. This is why the council says that acting in accordance with one’s own beliefs must be “within due limits.” In other words, no one has an unrestrained civil right to teach error in public.

It is true that no pope before Vatican II ever stated that a person has a civil right to teach error in public (DH also does not explicitly say this; it only implies it). However, the popes have said that the government can tolerate religious error for the sake of avoiding greater evil or preserving greater good ([b]Leo XIII[/b], [i]Immortale Dei [/i](1885) and [i]Libertas [/i](1888)). Thus, DH can be harmonized with traditional Catholic teaching if it is saying that people have a civil right to religious freedom, including teaching error publicly, if it avoids a greater evil or preserves a greater good.

If the greater good is harmed, then the religious freedom falls outside of “due limits” imposed by DH and must be restrained. Because the “common good” is a relative condition based upon the evolution of culture, the Church’s approach to religious freedom and the common good is a policy that can change, not a doctrine that cannot change. The Catechism in paragraph 1906 defines the “common good” as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” Thus, because “social conditions” change, the “common good” and policies relating to it can also change.

Even if one argues that DH has deviated from traditional Catholic teaching in regard to permitting religious error in public, the change would be only a policy position, not a doctrinal position, since it concerns the common good. Thus, DH’s statements do not come under the realm of infallibility and can be reformed in the future. [quote][b][u]Patron[/u][/b]: [b]Look what Pius IX said in Quanta Cura: “As a consequence of this absolutely false idea of social government, they do not hesitate to favor that erroneous opinion, most fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, which Our Predecessor of happy memory, Gregory XVI, called a delirium, namely, “that the liberty of conscience and of forms of worship is a right proper to every man; that it must be proclaimed in every well-established State, and that the citizens have a right to full freedom to manifest their opinions loudly and publicly, whatever these may be, by word, by printing, or otherwise, without the ecclesiastical or civil authority's being able to limit it.”[/b][/quote][b][u]J. Salza[/u][/b]: The “liberty of conscience” that Pius IX condemns is that liberty which leads to manifesting erroneous opinions in public “without the ecclesiastical or civil authority’s being able to limit it.” DH likewise says that religious freedom (liberty of conscience) must be exercised “within due limits.” Pius IX is not condemning the “liberty of conscience” which leads a person to the Catholic religion. Everyone has a moral right, nay, a moral obligation to seek religious truth and become Catholic. DH recognizes the same. Without this moral right, people would have no guilt before God in refusing to become Catholic. Thus, the “liberty of conscience” condemned in Quanta Cura is an unrestrained civil liberty that allows a person to manifest their opinions “loudly and publicly, whatever these may be.” DH never allows for the unrestrained civil right to manifest religious error in public. Such rights must be exercised “within due limits.” Moreover, DH never says that a person has a moral right to worship outside the Catholic religion. [quote][b][u]Patron[/u][/b]: [b]Pius also says: “Furthermore, contrary to the teaching of Scripture, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers, they do not fear to affirm that “the best government is that in which there is not conceded to the authorities the duty of curbing the violators of the Catholic religion with the sanction of penalties, except when public tranquility demands it.” [/b][/quote][b][u]J. Salza[/u][/b]: Notice that Pius is condemning the view of what the “best” government is. Pius is declaring that the “best” government is not one that curbs violators of the Catholic religion only for the interest of public tranquility. The “best” government is one that is subject to the Kingship of Jesus Christ, as Pius XI declared in Quas Primas. Thus, the best government would be one that curbs violators of the Catholic religion because Catholicism is the religion of the state which works with the Church to save souls. While DH is extremely weak in affirming this doctrine of the Catholic Church, it does declare: “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.”

Allow me to address some of the other teachings of Pius IX that often come up when evaluating Dignitatis Humanae.

-[i]Singulari Quadam [/i](1854): Pius IX says that the light of reason alone is insufficient for the attainment of truth. We also need heavenly grace and the divine religion, the Catholic faith. DH affirms this teaching.

-[i]Quanta Cura [/i](1864): the following is false: “[i]the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the government of correcting violators of the Catholic religion except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it[/i].” In other words, governments should have the right to correct those violate Catholicism because it is morally wrong, not just because it is harmful to the common good. DH affirms that all men have a moral duty to the Catholic Church and that it leaves this traditional teaching untouched. Thus, DH can be read to be consistent with this teaching.

-[i]Quanta Cura [/i](1864): condemned: “[i]The liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man which should be proclaimed by law[/i].” DH seems to flirt with contradicting this condemnation, but it can be reconciled with some effort. DH does not say that the government should proclaim liberty of conscience as “a peculiar or inalienable right.” It says only that people should have a civil right to religious freedom such that they should not be coerced to believe against their will. Further, DH affirms that public manifestations of religious expression can be constrained. If the rights were inalienable, they could not be lawfully constrained by civil authorities.

-[i]Syllabus [/i](1864) [b]15[/b]. “[i]Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true[/i].” This is false because it addresses embracing a false religion, not [b]simply seeking truth[/b]. This is also false because it implies the light of reason has not been illumined by Catholic truth. DH does not contradict this if DH is understood to be talking about civil rights only to practice false religions. If a person did not have a civil right to practice religion, he would most likely never find the Catholic religion. Moreover, DH affirms that the public expression of false religions can be constrained, and that everyone has a moral obligation to the Catholic religion.

[b]77[/b]. “[i]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[/i].” DH affirms this in its introductory comments, but agreeably does not do a very good job at affirming the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ over all peoples and nations.

[b]79[/b]. “[i]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, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism[/i].” This suggests that there can be no unrestrained civil liberty to religious freedom, as the pope says “every form of worship,” “full power given to all,” any opinions whatsoever.” These are broad statements. DH does not encourage unrestrained religious liberty. It encourages religious liberty “with due limits.”

[b]Let us also examine some of the teachings of Leo XIII[/b]:
-Immortale Dei (1885): No one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for as St. Augustine reminds us, Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will. In other words, God respects the dignity of the human person and invites a voluntary and uncoerced adherence to religious truth. DH reaffirms this traditional Catholic teaching.

-[i]Immortale Dei [/i](1885): the Church does not condemn rulers who, for the sake of securing some greater good, tolerate false religions. DH seems to go beyond “toleration” of false religions (especially because it doesn’t use the word), but remember that DH is concerned only with the civil (not moral) right of citizens, and this civil right is to be curbed “within due limits.”

-[i]Immortale Dei [/i](1885): we are bound to worship God they way which He has revealed. DH affirms that everyone has the moral obligation to the Catholic faith.

-[i]Immortale Dei [/i](1885): it is not lawful for the government to hold in equal favor all religions or to disregard all religious duties. DH says that the government cannot engage in “the unfair practice of favoritism” This appears inconsistent with Immortale Dei. The word “unfair” saves DH because it implies some favoritism can be practiced, so long as it is not unfair (i.e., against the common good; coercive).

-[i]Libertas [/i](1888): Right is a moral faculty that cannot belong naturally and without distinction to truth and lies, good and evil. Again, DH affirms everyone’s moral duty to the Catholic faith.

-[i]Libertas [/i](1888): Civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and must obey and reverence His power and authority. The state cannot be godless. This is the thrust of DH, however, it could have avoided a lot of confusion by affirming the Kingship of Jesus Christ as the one and only authority that must be obeyed by the state.

-[i]Libertas [/i](1888): “[i]While not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil or of obtaining or preserving some greater good[/i].” DH doesn’t say “[i]tolerate[/i]” so it appears that DH goes beyond this to recognize a more general civil right to religious freedom. But since the common good is a relative condition based upon the evolution of cultures, the Church’s teaching here is about policy which can change, and not doctrine which cannot change. Moreover, the civil right is not an unrestrained right to religious freedom, but one that must be exercised within due limits.

In [i]Ci Riesce[/i] (1953), [b]Pius XII[/b] said that no government can give a positive mandate or positive authorization to teach or to do that which is contrary to religious truth or moral good. DH never gives a positive mandate to teach what is contrary to the Catholic faith. It only gives a general civil right to practice religion within due limits and not to be coerced against one’s will.

In [i]Mirari Vos[/i] (1832), [b]Gregory XVI[/b] said that liberty of conscience springs forth from indifferentism and leads to the absolute and totally unrestrained liberty of opinions. Absolute and unrestrained liberty of opinions should not be guaranteed for everyone. He is obviously talking about a conscience that has not been illumined with Catholic faith. He is referring to those whose consciences are illumined by the light of reason alone. DH affirms the moral duty of all people to the Catholic faith, and the civil right to a limited and restrained religious freedom.

While a lot more could be said about this topic, I would summarize the traditional framework on Religious Liberty as follows:

[b]Moral Rights[/b]
1. Everyone has a moral right to seek religious truth.
2. Everyone has a moral duty to the Catholic Church as the one true religion.
3. No one has a moral right to practice a false religion.

DH can be reconciled with the foregoing.

[b]Civil Rights [/b][list]
[*]No one can be forced to act against his conscience in private.
[*]No one can be forced to act against his conscience in public.
[*]No one can be prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private
[*]One can be restricted from acting in accordance with his conscience in public. False religions can be tolerated by the state to preserve the common good.
[/list][url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#relliberty"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#relliberty[/url][/quote]This is taken from [url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com[/url] (Apologetics Website) sponsored by a man whom knows quite a bit about Catholic Theology and this website becoming a favorite for Catholic Scripture Apologist. Maybe this can provide help for some users here even though the topic is a little different the subject is much the same.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1204360' date='Feb 25 2007, 12:13 PM']I think [i]you[/i] misunderstand him.[/quote]
My point, STM, was that you hold there to be a contradiction between current teaching and past teaching. As such, you either believe that Peter is contradicting himself or you concede that you are misunderstanding either the past or current teaching. My understanding really has nothing to do with the question, because I don't see any apparent contradiction.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1204364' date='Feb 25 2007, 12:37 PM']This suggests that someone can publicly teach error, and no pope has ever made such a statement. Can you please provide me your comments?

[b][u]J. Salza[/u][/b]: The fact that volumes have been written evaluating whether DH is compatible with tradition demonstrates that the document is prima facie ambiguous, if not problematic. Never before in the history of the Catholic Church has a conciliar document caused so much angst and confusion. That being said, any attempts to reconcile DH with pre-conciliar teaching must ultimately be resolved by the pope who is our final authority on earth. In light of the foregoing, I will respond to your inquiry.

The first part of this declaration can be easily squared with traditional Catholic teaching. The council says religious freedom “means that all men are to be immune from coercion” in acting against their own beliefs. The Church has always taught that man cannot be coerced to believe against his will. For example, [b]Leo III[/b] in [i]Immortale Dei [/i](1885) said that “[u][b]No one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for as St. Augustine reminds us, Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will.” DH is simply reasserting the obvious[/b][/u]."

The second part of the declaration, which presumably recognizes a person’s right to publicly teach error, also can be harmonized with traditional Catholic teaching, but admittedly with more difficulty. First, as the council will later clarify, it is referring only to the civil, but not moral, right to religious freedom. DH never says that a person has the moral right to teach error in public. The Catechism affirms that such freedom is not a license to adhere to error (CCC 2108). I address this in Masonry Unmasked, pages 40-42. Second, even within the realm of the civil right, such freedom has limitations. This is why the council says that acting in accordance with one’s own beliefs must be “within due limits.” In other words, no one has an unrestrained civil right to teach error in public.

It is true that no pope before Vatican II ever stated that a person has a civil right to teach error in public (DH also does not explicitly say this; it only implies it). However, the popes have said that the government can tolerate religious error for the sake of avoiding greater evil or preserving greater good ([b]Leo XIII[/b], [i]Immortale Dei [/i](1885) and [i]Libertas [/i](1888)). Thus, DH can be harmonized with traditional Catholic teaching if it is saying that people have a civil right to religious freedom, including teaching error publicly, if it avoids a greater evil or preserves a greater good.

If the greater good is harmed, then the religious freedom falls outside of “due limits” imposed by DH and must be restrained. Because the “common good” is a relative condition based upon the evolution of culture, the Church’s approach to religious freedom and the common good is a policy that can change, not a doctrine that cannot change. The Catechism in paragraph 1906 defines the “common good” as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” Thus, because “social conditions” change, the “common good” and policies relating to it can also change.

Even if one argues that DH has deviated from traditional Catholic teaching in regard to permitting religious error in public, the change would be only a policy position, not a doctrinal position, since it concerns the common good. Thus, DH’s statements do not come under the realm of infallibility and can be reformed in the future. [b][u]J. Salza[/u][/b]: The “liberty of conscience” that Pius IX condemns is that liberty which leads to manifesting erroneous opinions in public “without the ecclesiastical or civil authority’s being able to limit it.” DH likewise says that religious freedom (liberty of conscience) must be exercised “within due limits.” Pius IX is not condemning the “liberty of conscience” which leads a person to the Catholic religion. Everyone has a moral right, nay, a moral obligation to seek religious truth and become Catholic. DH recognizes the same. Without this moral right, people would have no guilt before God in refusing to become Catholic. Thus, the “liberty of conscience” condemned in Quanta Cura is an unrestrained civil liberty that allows a person to manifest their opinions “loudly and publicly, whatever these may be.” DH never allows for the unrestrained civil right to manifest religious error in public. Such rights must be exercised “within due limits.” Moreover, DH never says that a person has a moral right to worship outside the Catholic religion. [b][u]J. Salza[/u][/b]: Notice that Pius is condemning the view of what the “best” government is. Pius is declaring that the “best” government is not one that curbs violators of the Catholic religion only for the interest of public tranquility. The “best” government is one that is subject to the Kingship of Jesus Christ, as Pius XI declared in Quas Primas. Thus, the best government would be one that curbs violators of the Catholic religion because Catholicism is the religion of the state which works with the Church to save souls. While DH is extremely weak in affirming this doctrine of the Catholic Church, it does declare: “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.”

Allow me to address some of the other teachings of Pius IX that often come up when evaluating Dignitatis Humanae.

-[i]Singulari Quadam [/i](1854): Pius IX says that the light of reason alone is insufficient for the attainment of truth. We also need heavenly grace and the divine religion, the Catholic faith. DH affirms this teaching.

-[i]Quanta Cura [/i](1864): the following is false: “[i]the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the government of correcting violators of the Catholic religion except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it[/i].” In other words, governments should have the right to correct those violate Catholicism because it is morally wrong, not just because it is harmful to the common good. DH affirms that all men have a moral duty to the Catholic Church and that it leaves this traditional teaching untouched. Thus, DH can be read to be consistent with this teaching.

-[i]Quanta Cura [/i](1864): condemned: “[i]The liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man which should be proclaimed by law[/i].” DH seems to flirt with contradicting this condemnation, but it can be reconciled with some effort. DH does not say that the government should proclaim liberty of conscience as “a peculiar or inalienable right.” It says only that people should have a civil right to religious freedom such that they should not be coerced to believe against their will. Further, DH affirms that public manifestations of religious expression can be constrained. If the rights were inalienable, they could not be lawfully constrained by civil authorities.

-[i]Syllabus [/i](1864) [b]15[/b]. “[i]Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true[/i].” This is false because it addresses embracing a false religion, not [b]simply seeking truth[/b]. This is also false because it implies the light of reason has not been illumined by Catholic truth. DH does not contradict this if DH is understood to be talking about civil rights only to practice false religions. If a person did not have a civil right to practice religion, he would most likely never find the Catholic religion. Moreover, DH affirms that the public expression of false religions can be constrained, and that everyone has a moral obligation to the Catholic religion.

[b]77[/b]. “[i]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[/i].” DH affirms this in its introductory comments, but agreeably does not do a very good job at affirming the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ over all peoples and nations.

[b]79[/b]. “[i]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, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism[/i].” This suggests that there can be no unrestrained civil liberty to religious freedom, as the pope says “every form of worship,” “full power given to all,” any opinions whatsoever.” These are broad statements. DH does not encourage unrestrained religious liberty. It encourages religious liberty “with due limits.”

[b]Let us also examine some of the teachings of Leo XIII[/b]:
-Immortale Dei (1885): No one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for as St. Augustine reminds us, Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will. In other words, God respects the dignity of the human person and invites a voluntary and uncoerced adherence to religious truth. DH reaffirms this traditional Catholic teaching.

-[i]Immortale Dei [/i](1885): the Church does not condemn rulers who, for the sake of securing some greater good, tolerate false religions. DH seems to go beyond “toleration” of false religions (especially because it doesn’t use the word), but remember that DH is concerned only with the civil (not moral) right of citizens, and this civil right is to be curbed “within due limits.”

-[i]Immortale Dei [/i](1885): we are bound to worship God they way which He has revealed. DH affirms that everyone has the moral obligation to the Catholic faith.

-[i]Immortale Dei [/i](1885): it is not lawful for the government to hold in equal favor all religions or to disregard all religious duties. DH says that the government cannot engage in “the unfair practice of favoritism” This appears inconsistent with Immortale Dei. The word “unfair” saves DH because it implies some favoritism can be practiced, so long as it is not unfair (i.e., against the common good; coercive).

-[i]Libertas [/i](1888): Right is a moral faculty that cannot belong naturally and without distinction to truth and lies, good and evil. Again, DH affirms everyone’s moral duty to the Catholic faith.

-[i]Libertas [/i](1888): Civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and must obey and reverence His power and authority. The state cannot be godless. This is the thrust of DH, however, it could have avoided a lot of confusion by affirming the Kingship of Jesus Christ as the one and only authority that must be obeyed by the state.

-[i]Libertas [/i](1888): “[i]While not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil or of obtaining or preserving some greater good[/i].” DH doesn’t say “[i]tolerate[/i]” so it appears that DH goes beyond this to recognize a more general civil right to religious freedom. But since the common good is a relative condition based upon the evolution of cultures, the Church’s teaching here is about policy which can change, and not doctrine which cannot change. Moreover, the civil right is not an unrestrained right to religious freedom, but one that must be exercised within due limits.

In [i]Ci Riesce[/i] (1953), [b]Pius XII[/b] said that no government can give a positive mandate or positive authorization to teach or to do that which is contrary to religious truth or moral good. DH never gives a positive mandate to teach what is contrary to the Catholic faith. It only gives a general civil right to practice religion within due limits and not to be coerced against one’s will.

In [i]Mirari Vos[/i] (1832), [b]Gregory XVI[/b] said that liberty of conscience springs forth from indifferentism and leads to the absolute and totally unrestrained liberty of opinions. Absolute and unrestrained liberty of opinions should not be guaranteed for everyone. He is obviously talking about a conscience that has not been illumined with Catholic faith. He is referring to those whose consciences are illumined by the light of reason alone. DH affirms the moral duty of all people to the Catholic faith, and the civil right to a limited and restrained religious freedom.

While a lot more could be said about this topic, I would summarize the traditional framework on Religious Liberty as follows:

[b]Moral Rights[/b]
1. Everyone has a moral right to seek religious truth.
2. Everyone has a moral duty to the Catholic Church as the one true religion.
3. No one has a moral right to practice a false religion.

DH can be reconciled with the foregoing.

[b]Civil Rights [/b][list]
[*]No one can be forced to act against his conscience in private.
[*]No one can be forced to act against his conscience in public.
[*]No one can be prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private
[*]One can be restricted from acting in accordance with his conscience in public. False religions can be tolerated by the state to preserve the common good.
[/list][url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#relliberty"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#relliberty[/url]This is taken from [url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com[/url] (Apologetics Website) sponsored by a man whom knows quite a bit about Catholic Theology and this website becoming a favorite for Catholic Scripture Apologist. Maybe this can provide help for some users here even though the topic is a little different the subject is much the same.[/quote]


it all makes sense except one thing: What is the common good of allowing a heretic to publicly practice his religion?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1204371' date='Feb 25 2007, 12:56 PM']it all makes sense except one thing: What is the common good of allowing a heretic to publicly practice his religion?[/quote]
That human dignity is respected.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1204372' date='Feb 25 2007, 12:57 PM']That human dignity is respected.[/quote]


see that is my problem. ive never read anything about the "dignity of the human person" before Vatican II. So i'm not really sure what to do with that...

Edited February 25, 2007 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1204374' date='Feb 25 2007, 01:01 PM']see that is my problem. ive never read anything about the "dignity of the human person" before Vatican II. So i'm not really sure what to do with that...[/quote]
Human dignity was never so maliciously attacked as it was in the 20th century. It's no surprise that it hadn't been mentioned as much. Regardless, if you say that there is no such thing as human dignity, then you are a Calvinist.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1204376' date='Feb 25 2007, 01:05 PM']Human dignity was never so maliciously attacked as it was in the 20th century. It's no surprise that it hadn't been mentioned. Regardless, if you say that there is no such thing as human dignity, then you are a Calvinist.[/quote]

no i believe in human dignity. But from what i understand, dignity comes from the perfection of man.

[quote]What is dignity? According to Catholic tradition, man derives dignity from his perfection, i.e, from his knowledge of the truth and his acquisition of the good. Man is worthy of respect in accordance with his intention to obey God, not in accordance with his errors, which will inevitably lead to sin.[/quote]

[Mr.Cat]

[quote]"is also false because it implies the light of reason has not been illumined by Catholic truth. DH does not contradict this if DH is understood to be talking about civil rights only to practice false religions. If a person did not have a civil right to practice religion, he would most likely never find the Catholic religion. Moreover, DH affirms that the public expression of false religions can be constrained, and that everyone has a moral obligation to the Catholic religion."[/quote]I believe it would be the constant reference to preserve the “common good” in toleration when it comes to such human liberties...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1204377' date='Feb 25 2007, 01:06 PM']no i believe in human dignity. But from what i understand, dignity comes from the perfection of man.[/quote]
Human dignity stems from the fact that all are made in the image of God. Thus, St. Basil of Caesarea says that while the likeness to God is lost with the fall, the image of God is not. As such, everyone has freedom and liberty and far from a right to practice that freedom for evil, rather a right not to be coerced. For the state to sponsor false religions is wrong, but for the state to force one particular religion is also wrong. If the state stops false religions from being practiced, then it is coercing. What I will say is that the state may and should have Catholicism as an official religion and should try to encourage the faith, to help catechesis along, and to bring about the conversion of its citizens without making it the case that they have no other choice but to become Catholic.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1204383' date='Feb 25 2007, 01:16 PM']Human dignity stems from the fact that all are made in the image of God. Thus, St. Basil of Caesarea says that while the likeness to God is lost with the fall, the image of God is not. As such, everyone has freedom and liberty and far from a right to practice that freedom for evil, rather a right not to be coerced. For the state to sponsor false religions is wrong, but for the state to force one particular religion is also wrong. If the state stops false religions from being practiced, then it is coercing. What I will say is that the state may and should have Catholicism as an official religion and should try to encourage the faith, to help catechesis along, and to bring about the conversion of its citizens without making it the case that they have no other choice but to become Catholic.[/quote]


i agree with you

please forgive me, i misunderstood your argument. i falsely thought that you were saying that no state should have Catholicism as the official religion.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1204370' date='Feb 25 2007, 10:53 AM']My point, STM, was that you hold there to be a contradiction between current teaching and past teaching. As such, you either believe that Peter is contradicting himself or you concede that you are misunderstanding either the past or current teaching. My understanding really has nothing to do with the question, because I don't see any apparent contradiction.[/quote]

I don't see a contradiction. I just believe that the teaching from the Second Oecumenical Council of the Vatican should be reconciled to the 1940 years of Catholicism before the Council, not [i]vice versa[/i].

[Mr.Cat]

Post #20 ( [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=64688&st=20#"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...4688&st=20#[/url] )

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1204714' date='Feb 25 2007, 10:39 PM']Post #20 ( [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=64688&st=20#"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...4688&st=20#[/url] )[/quote]

already read it