Jan Hus

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='04 October 2009 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1254700385' post='1977711']
I do not think that it would be morally acceptable for the state to execute a heretic under the social conditions that exist today.
[/quote]

A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='04 October 2009 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1254700495' post='1977713']
A simple "yes" would have sufficed.
[/quote]

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='04 October 2009 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1254700565' post='1977715']

[/quote]

?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='04 October 2009 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1254700612' post='1977716']
?
[/quote]

[HisChildForever]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='04 October 2009 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1254700919' post='1977723']

[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='04 October 2009 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1254700085' post='1977706']
do you posit similarly as it pertains to slavery?
[/quote]
Honestly, to a certain extent one could say so. The institution of slavery was certainly gravely wrong, but in terms of individual culpability, I'd be willing to bet that social conditions seriously reduced it. At least for the average guy off the street.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='04 October 2009 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1254699721' post='1977701']
In this case it means that you do not have a right to enact justice yourself, say to carry out capital punishment. But the State does have the right to use Capital Punishment against certain criminals who commit Capital crimes.
[/quote]

Where does the State get that right, Knight? God himself? A great number of individuals? How can a group of individuals bestow on a third party rights which they themselves, as individuals, do not possess?

~Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Terra Firma' date='04 October 2009 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1254697228' post='1977652']
I think it's unfair to judge history when using the lens of our modern sensibilities.
[/quote]

They're going to be saying that about abortion, 200 years from now.

~Sternhauser

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='04 October 2009 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1254705488' post='1977773']
Where does the State get that right, Knight? God himself? A great number of individuals? How can a group of individuals bestow on a third party rights which they themselves, as individuals, do not possess?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
KofC and I had the same go round.

If i remember correctly, the State gives the State the right.

I could be wrong.. the logic was muddled.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='04 October 2009 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1254705672' post='1977779']
KofC and I had the same go round.

If i remember correctly, the State gives the State the right.

I could be wrong.. the logic was muddled.
[/quote]

Ah, it's good to be the State. I'd hate to be one of those poor saps for whom the State allegedly exists.

But then again, I'd love to be one of those people for whom the State [i]really[/i] exists. Like I said, it's good to be the State.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 5, 2009 by Sternhauser

[OraProMe]

Executing someone because of their beliefs is always wrong and "Exsurge Domine" was clearly influenced by social and cultural factors:

1)the idea of human rights was unheard of
2)there was little value placed on human life
3)It was generally a monoethnic culture with the vast majority of people being of the same religion.

Social and cultural circumstances are different today which is why religious freedom is now regarded as a right that should be enshrined in the laws of any properly constituted state (DH, VII) rather than "insane" and perverse (Quanta Cura, Pius IX).

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='04 October 2009 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1254708980' post='1977819']
Executing someone because of their beliefs is always wrong and "Exsurge Domine" was clearly influenced by social and cultural factors:

1)the idea of human rights was unheard of
2)there was little value placed on human life
3)It was generally a monoethnic culture with the vast majority of people being of the same religion.

Social and cultural circumstances are different today which is why religious freedom is now regarded as a right that should be enshrined in the laws of any properly constituted state (DH, VII) rather than "insane" and perverse (Quanta Cura, Pius IX).
[/quote]

I agree with Leo X, Pius IX, and Vatican II. We must always read [i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] in light of previous magisterial decrees, especially since DH itself states that "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."

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='04 October 2009 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1254708980' post='1977819']
Executing someone because of their beliefs is always wrong and "Exsurge Domine" was clearly influenced by social and cultural factors:

1)the idea of human rights was unheard of
2)there was little value placed on human life
3)It was generally a monoethnic culture with the vast majority of people being of the same religion.

Social and cultural circumstances are different today which is why religious freedom is now regarded as a right that should be enshrined in the laws of any properly constituted state (DH, VII) rather than "insane" and perverse (Quanta Cura, Pius IX).
[/quote]
So how do you interpret Exsurge Domine for today's culture?

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='04 October 2009 - 09:19 PM' timestamp='1254709163' post='1977826']
I agree with Leo X, Pius IX, and Vatican II. We must always read [i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] in light of previous magisterial decrees, especially since DH itself states that "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."
[/quote]

Actually "it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the....etc." was a footnote added to appease the conservative bishops. Besides, Religious Freedom is not about the moral duty of men toward the true religion. It is about silencing and oppressing those who do not fulfill this moral obligation. Infact Vatican II even addresses your point:

(P.2) “Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation, [b]not in the subjective disposition of the person[/b], but in his very nature. In consequence, [b]the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth[/b]"

That is that Religious Freedom is a right, even in those who fail in their obligations towards the True Religion.

“They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that [b]liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man,[/b] a right which should be proclaimed and [b]affirmed by law in every properly constituted state.[/b] (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

"This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.”
[b]
Can you please explain how those two statements are compatible with one another?[/b] I'd honestly like to hear because the issue of the Church contradicting itself on religious freedom is one of the biggest intellectual hurdles I have with the Catholic Church.

Edited October 5, 2009 by OraProMe