Explanation of Religious Liberty

[SanctusPeccator]

Originally Posted by mattkubes

No not dogma, but it's hard to argue that it wasn't part of the ordinary and universal magisterium. It was taught consistently and, from what I can tell, unanimously for centuries.

Both JReducation and Dan Daly have noted the key to the solution of resolving the apparent contradiction on religious liberty between the nineteenth-century encyclical letters and Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis humanae. Each is addressing the application of the Deposit of Faith to different historical situations. The former dealt with the refusal of anticlerical governments (in largely Catholic nations) to abide by the respective concordats establishing the temporal role of the Church; the latter was concerned with respecting the inviolable dignity of the human person (including non-Catholics) from coercion in violating their conscience in religious matters. The nineteenth-century pontiffs reflected the prior approach toward the confessional state while the latter indicates the fait accompli of secularized states in modern society.

Although the magisterial teaching from the nineteenth-century pontiffs still holds true, Vatican II simply realizes they are no longer applicable to the actual reality in contemporary civilization. This would be analogous to the parents of a family disciplining their offspring: time-outs would be appropriate for correcting the misbehavior of a preschooler, but it would not be applicable when they are adolescents.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

The quote from Cardinal Gibbons would need a lot more explanation to avoid serious confusion with most Americans.



"worshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience, and of practicing a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God."

And what would the form of religion most in accordance with man's duties to God be?

Catholicism.

If any act which infringes on a man's freedom of conscience is religious intolerance, then the act of not being Catholic is religious intolerance.

What most American's think of as religious freedom is in actuallity religious indifferentism as defined by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos.

If Cardinal Gibbons told Pope Leo XIII that no Catholics in the US held the views warned about in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae then he was severely mistaken.

Pax

Actually, the original letter by Cardinal Gibbons is on display in Baltimore and it has the seal and signature of approval of Pope Leo XIII. That that time, the Vatican had come to realize that there was no way that the USA was going to become a Catholic nation, unless Catholics imposed the faith by force, which is not allowed.

What has to be understood here is what Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Sheen and Archbishop Lefebvre wrote. Archbishop Lefebvre said it best in his work to confused Catholics. Archbishop Lefebvre on EENS .

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

Gibbons is defending the freedom to follow what one truly believes to be God's will. He's not advocating for indifferentism. He's advocating against intolerance. Pope Leo understood the difference.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[Dan Daly]

I didn't say Cardinal Gibbons was advocating indifferentism. I said, his words quoted in the thread could be taken that way by many Americans who equate religious freedom with religious indifferentism.

I also maintain that the errors of "Americanism" Pope Leo XIII warned about were present among American Catholics then and now. "Phantom heresy" Americanism is not.

I fully agree that the faith can't be imposed by force. Forced conversion is a contradition of terms.

I'd disagree that there is no way that the United States can become a Catholic country. We simply need to do what Christ commanded and spread the Gospel. This is done most effectively by living the Gospel message ourselves. As Jean Ousset said "We conquer by convincing."

Pax Christi

[choliks]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

I didn't say Cardinal Gibbons was advocating indifferentism. I said, his words quoted in the thread could be taken that way by many Americans who equate religious freedom with religious indifferentism.

I also maintain that the errors of "Americanism" Pope Leo XIII warned about were present among American Catholics then and now. "Phantom heresy" Americanism is not.

I fully agree that the faith can't be imposed by force. Forced conversion is a contradition of terms.

I'd disagree that there is no way that the United States can become a Catholic country. We simply need to do what Christ commanded and spread the Gospel. This is done most effectively by living the Gospel message ourselves. As Jean Ousset said "We conquer by convincing."



Pax Christi

While I say, "we conquer by loving."

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

I didn't say Cardinal Gibbons was advocating indifferentism. I said, his words quoted in the thread could be taken that way by many Americans who equate religious freedom with religious indifferentism.

I also maintain that the errors of "Americanism" Pope Leo XIII warned about were present among American Catholics then and now. "Phantom heresy" Americanism is not.

I fully agree that the faith can't be imposed by force. Forced conversion is a contradition of terms.

I'd disagree that there is no way that the United States can become a Catholic country. We simply need to do what Christ commanded and spread the Gospel. This is done most effectively by living the Gospel message ourselves. As Jean Ousset said "We conquer by convincing."

Pax Christi

Originally Posted by choliks

While I say, "we conquer by loving."

What was it that St. Paul said about the bell and love?

"If I have not love . . . "

St. Maximilian Kolbe's final words to the friars as they parted company, "Forget not love."

St. Clare's words to St. Francis when he was frustrated for not having converted the Sultan, "You showed him the power of love. Let God do the rest."

St. Vincent de Paul when asked why the Daughters of Charity did not wear a nun's habit. "Their veil is the veil of love."

The other one from St. Clare that I truly love is in the same conversation about the Sultan, Francis expresses a desire to try again. Clare said to him, "There may be more Mohammedans in heaven than Catholics. 'To whom much is given . . . much will be required.' Stay and convert Catholics back to Christianity. They are in greater danger."

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[Dan Daly]

Originally Posted by choliks

While I say, "we conquer by loving."

As, I said, the best way to convince people is by living authentically Catholic lives. Which means loving. I think we are on the same page here. Love is pretty convincing stuff.

[choliks]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

As, I said, the best way to convince people is by living authentically Catholic lives. Which means loving. I think we are on the same page here. Love is pretty convincing stuff.

Agreed.

[choliks]

Originally Posted by JReducation

What was it that St. Paul said about the bell and love?

"If I have not love . . . "

St. Maximilian Kolbe's final words to the friars as they parted company, "Forget not love."

St. Clare's words to St. Francis when he was frustrated for not having converted the Sultan, "You showed him the power of love. Let God do the rest."

St. Vincent de Paul when asked why the Daughters of Charity did not wear a nun's habit. "Their veil is the veil of love."

The other one from St. Clare that I truly love is in the same conversation about the Sultan, Francis expresses a desire to try again. Clare said to him, "There may be more Mohammedans in heaven than Catholics. 'To whom much is given . . . much will be required.' Stay and convert Catholics back to Christianity. They are in greater danger."

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I take it back. How self-centered of me. Mea culpa. I should've have said, "Great Saints have said we conquered by loving." I have forgotten about those who have gone before me. When I measure myself against them and what they've accomplished, I'm a mere grain of sand. And when I measure myself against God, I am nothing.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by choliks

I take it back. How self-centered of me. Mea culpa. I should've have said, "Great Saints have said we conquered by loving." I have forgotten about those who have gone before me. When I measure myself against them and what they've accomplished, I'm a mere grain of sand. And when I measure myself against God, I am nothing.

You don't have to take it back. Just add your name to the book of saints. You can do it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[mytruepower2]

"Religious Freedom" is much too broad a term to mean anything. We need to pin down a much more specific definition.

It could mean any of the following.

1. The teaching that people should have the freedom to choose, ultimately, which religion they belong to.

No kidding. People do have that freedom, so long as Christianity, and Catholicism in particular dominates in society. Many other religious have a tendency to crush religious freedom of type 1.

2. The teaching that the government should not execute or persecute people simply for belonging to a religion.

Another no-brainer. Of course we should have this freedom.

3. The teaching that society should have no vested interest in promoting the wellbeing of one religion over the others.

Absolutely not. Bad religion leads to a bad society. Society -does- have an interest in making sure it gets its religion right.

4. The teaching that all religions must have an equal place, or equal standing in society.

No way. This presupposes that no one religion is correct, which is not a safe presupposition, to say the least. After all, if one religion is correct, and the rest contain errors, it makes no sense to insist on mixing a bunch of errors into the pot with the good stuff.

5. The teaching that no religious practices may be interfered with by the state.

No. The old testament contained several examples of "religious practices," which needed to be interfered with. Child sacrifice to Moloch, for example. I can think of several such practices which persist to today in some countries, and should be interfered with by the state.

6. The teaching that all religions are of equal worth.

Nothing could be -less- Catholic than this.

However, when modern governments oppose "religious freedom," what they're opposing is the idea that religion should even -have- a place in secular society at all. I'm on the side of the church in this, of course, but I consider it a moral issue, not an issue of religious freedom.

[Dan Daly]

No. The old testament contained several examples of "religious practices," which needed to be interfered with. Child sacrifice to Moloch, for example. I can think of several such practices which persist to today in some countries, and should be interfered with by the state.

Agreed, and one of those countries where the practice of human sacrifice is currently practiced is the United States. Indeed in recent years, some groups have articulated that they have a religious duty to obtain an abortion which must be preserved as part of their religious liberty.

Which is demonstrates why making "religious liberty" out to be an absolute right or the most important right is incredibly self defeating and dangerous.

Pax

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by mytruepower2

"Religious Freedom" is much too broad a term to mean anything. We need to pin down a much more specific definition.

It could mean any of the following.

1. The teaching that people should have the freedom to choose, ultimately, which religion they belong to.

No kidding. People do have that freedom, so long as Christianity, and Catholicism in particular dominates in society. Many other religious have a tendency to crush religious freedom of type 1.

2. The teaching that the government should not execute or persecute people simply for belonging to a religion.

Another no-brainer. Of course we should have this freedom.

3. The teaching that society should have no vested interest in promoting the wellbeing of one religion over the others.

Absolutely not. Bad religion leads to a bad society. Society -does- have an interest in making sure it gets its religion right.

4. The teaching that all religions must have an equal place, or equal standing in society.

No way. This presupposes that no one religion is correct, which is not a safe presupposition, to say the least. After all, if one religion is correct, and the rest contain errors, it makes no sense to insist on mixing a bunch of errors into the pot with the good stuff.

5. The teaching that no religious practices may be interfered with by the state.

No. The old testament contained several examples of "religious practices," which needed to be interfered with. Child sacrifice to Moloch, for example. I can think of several such practices which persist to today in some countries, and should be interfered with by the state.

6. The teaching that all religions are of equal worth.

Nothing could be -less- Catholic than this.

However, when modern governments oppose "religious freedom," what they're opposing is the idea that religion should even -have- a place in secular society at all. I'm on the side of the church in this, of course, but I consider it a moral issue, not an issue of religious freedom.

But we have to understand the OT in context. The state and the faith were all one thing. The state was born out of the faith. First came the call of Abraham and then came the birth of Israel. The birth of Israel is the product of a vocation. This is not the case today.

Nations are not born in response to a divine vocation. Nations are born in response to many needs that come together. Just look at our own country. The people who have immigrated to the USA and make it what it is have not come here for religious reasons alone or in response to a divine vocation.

What Cardinal Gibbons defines makes more sense for our time, a nation where the faith is reached without the influence of the state and a state that protects an individual's freedom to respond to God's call according to his conscience, as he understands the call and on God's time, which may be a long process for some and a shorter one for others.

The idea is that the state neither enforces nor interferes with religion, but protects the rights of citizens to respond to God on His terms, not our terms.

We have to be very careful not to confuse religion with morals. The state has an obligation to follow morality as it is revealed to us in natural law. In fact, if the states did just that much, it would be a big improvement. We would not have to struggle with issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, promiscuity/prostitution w/o pay, etc. It is possible for the state to follow natural law without controlling or being controlled by any one religion. Plato and Confucius show us this very clearly. This idea is not just a Western one. It's also been made known to Eastern thinkers independent of Western philosophers. Unfortunately, the study of law in this day and age is very poor in philosophy and very big on politics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[mytruepower2]

Originally Posted by JReducation

But we have to understand the OT in context. The state and the faith were all one thing. The state was born out of the faith. First came the call of Abraham and then came the birth of Israel. The birth of Israel is the product of a vocation. This is not the case today.

Nations are not born in response to a divine vocation. Nations are born in response to many needs that come together. Just look at our own country. The people who have immigrated to the USA and make it what it is have not come here for religious reasons alone or in response to a divine vocation.

I am making no points with respect to the inherent value of the state. My point is that certain practices of religion are inherently immoral, and any truly just society will recognize this and come to the rescue of the injured parties.

Originally Posted by JReducation

What Cardinal Gibbons defines makes more sense for our time, a nation where the faith is reached without the influence of the state and a state that protects an individual's freedom to respond to God's call according to his conscience, as he understands the call and on God's time, which may be a long process for some and a shorter one for others.

The idea is that the state neither enforces nor interferes with religion, but protects the rights of citizens to respond to God on His terms, not our terms.

This is essentially what I outlined in definition 1.

Originally Posted by JReducation

We have to be very careful not to confuse religion with morals. The state has an obligation to follow morality as it is revealed to us in natural law. In fact, if the states did just that much, it would be a big improvement. We would not have to struggle with issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, promiscuity/prostitution w/o pay, etc. It is possible for the state to follow natural law without controlling or being controlled by any one religion. Plato and Confucius show us this very clearly. This idea is not just a Western one. It's also been made known to Eastern thinkers independent of Western philosophers. Unfortunately, the study of law in this day and age is very poor in philosophy and very big on politics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

A very good reply, but there are several points here which I think merit consideration.

1. With respect to Plato and Confucius, neither faced the terminal pluralism that haunts modern society, and both lived among people who were, by and large, seeking to know the truth. Furthermore, both were philosophers. My point is not that it is -impossible- for a secular state to survive. Just is that it's ridiculous to suppose that the state can be indifferent as to whether its citizens believe the truth or lies. "The state" -consists- of its citizens, and there needs to be some kind of safeguard for the truth within society.

2. However, even if it could be proven that it were possible for a society to endorse religious pluralism and remain standing, that -does not- prove that it is -best- for a society to do so. After all, it's -possible- for me to carry a 150-lb weight on my back around the neighborhood for a year without dying, but it wouldn't be the best thing for my back.

3. Following from 2, the question of probabilities comes up. Is it more probable for a civilization dominated by religious pluralism to lead souls to salvation, or is it more probable that it will lead them to Hell? I admit that much of this is speculation, but something inside of me turns itself into a knot when I ask myself that question.

4. Finally, remember that when we're talking about pluralism and probabilities, what we're really talking about is the fate of souls. Evildoers don't think the same way we do about pluralism. Stalin, for example, said that each man imposes his own order as far as his army will reach. Now, I'm not saying that all non-Catholic faiths think this way, but I think it would be niave to assume that they all want to be democratic and fair, and play nice with us. Remember, God himself is black and white. There are no non-Catholics in Heaven. He doesn't compromise. All this talk of pluralism, to me, just means lost ground when I think about it in that light.

Then again, I think I've gone over this extensively in my six definitions. God has given his children certain rights, which must be respected, but you'll never convince me that the various other religions, -as other religions,- deserve a place at the same table with Christianity.

[Dan Daly]

The idea is that the state neither enforces nor interferes with religion, but protects the rights of citizens to respond to God on His terms, not our terms.

With respect, it is important to amend that to "neither enforces nor interferes with religion within due limits."

Some religious practices must be interfered with because they are evils that harm the public good. An absolute statement that the civil law must not interfere with an individuals conscience is a invitation to anarchy. After all, laws against homicide infirnge on the serial killer's exercise of his conscience.

To give an example that ties directly to the current situation, we find in Humanae Vitae:

23. And now We wish to speak to rulers of nations. To you most of all is committed the responsibility of safeguarding the common good. You can contribute so much to the preservation of morals. We beg of you, never allow the morals of your peoples to be undermined. The family is the primary unit in the state; do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God

.

Written by the same Pope who approved Dignitatis Humanae, Humanae Vitae appears to make it clear that contraception goes beyond those due limits, where errors can be tolerated, and that prohibition of contraception, even for those who erroneously think it acceptable, would be something needed to defend the common good.

People do have a duty to obey their conscience. However, emphasis on that duty alone without any attention to the matched duty to form a right conscience conformed to objective truth, does a great deal of harm.

Our Holy Father addresses this point very well in two books written before he became Pope. Truth and Tolerance and On Conscience. As he points out, a person's conscience can be wrong, and he also denies it would be good to tolerate absolute civil religious freedom.

Pax Christi

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

With respect, it is important to amend that to "neither enforces nor interferes with religion within due limits."

Some religious practices must be interfered with because they are evils that harm the public good. An absolute statement that the civil law must not interfere with an individuals conscience is a invitation to anarchy. After all, laws against homicide infirnge on the serial killer's exercise of his conscience.

To give an example that ties directly to the current situation, we find in Humanae Vitae:

.

Written by the same Pope who approved Dignitatis Humanae, Humanae Vitae appears to make it clear that contraception goes beyond those due limits, where errors can be tolerated, and that prohibition of contraception, even for those who erroneously think it acceptable, would be something needed to defend the common good.

People do have a duty to obey their conscience. However, emphasis on that duty alone without any attention to the matched duty to form a right conscience conformed to objective truth, does a great deal of harm.

Our Holy Father addresses this point very well in two books written before he became Pope. Truth and Tolerance and On Conscience. As he points out, a person's conscience can be wrong, and he also denies it would be good to tolerate absolute civil religious freedom.

Pax Christi

You're agreeing with me. Here is what I said.


We have to be very careful not to confuse religion with morals. The state has an obligation to follow morality as it is revealed to us in natural law. In fact, if the states did just that much, it would be a big improvement. We would not have to struggle with issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, promiscuity/prostitution w/o pay, etc.

As to religion, that's another story. I believe that Bishop Fellay put it very well in a recent interview. He said the it had been explained to him, during these talks, that the Council never meant to say that error has rights. What it meant to say was that people have freedom and that freedom cannot be trampled on. Therefore, faith cannot be imposed by the Church nor by the state. Nor does anyone have the right to prohibit faith. Faith is far greater than religious observance. Religious observance is an expression of what one believes.

He was saying that he agrees with this vision of religious freedom. He even pointed to some countries, without mentioning them by name, where religious freedom does not exist. We know which those are. We don't want a state that governs by force rather than by morals, nor a state that interferes with the work of grace.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV