Explanation of Religious Liberty

[Vouthon]

Originally Posted by JReducation

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

Well I am very impressed by Bishop Fellay I must say

What he says, brother Jreducation, is in line with my own thinking.

I have always maintained that error has no rights and that the Council never intended to revoke this belief of the nineteenth century papacy but rather uphold the perrenial teaching of the Catholic Church that faith cannot be compelled and that people have the freedom/right to be wrong/in error especially in matters of religion/civil sphere. This is because the dignity of the human person and their free-willed adherence too conscience is inviolable and impenetrable, under no human authority, subject to no outside compulsion, only answerable to God alone.


"...We decree moreover that no Christian shall compel them or any one of their group to come to baptism unwillingly. But if any one of them shall take refuge of his own accord with Christians, because of conviction, then, after his intention will have been manifest, he shall be made a Christian without any intrigue. For, indeed, that person who is known to have come to Christian baptism not freely, but unwillingly, is not believed to posses the Christian faith..."

- Blessed Pope Gregory X, Decree on the Jews, 1272


"...The Church is wont to take earnest heed that 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...”

- (Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei 1885)


"...Men ought not to be compelled to believe, because God will have mercy on those whom he will have mercy. As man fell by his own free will in listening to the wiles of the serpent, so man can only be converted by his free acceptance of the Christian faith..."

- (Fourth Council of Toledo, 633)


"...Let no Jew be constrained to receive baptism, and he that will not consent to be baptized, let him not be molested. Let no one unjustly seize their property, disturb their feasts, or lay waste their cemeteries..."

- Pope Innocent III, 1198


"...Faith should be a matter of persuasion, not of imposition..."

- Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, 1090 –1153




This was explained beautifully by the great Catholic mystic Archbishop Francois Fenelon in the 17th century. Cardinal James Gibbons, the famous and well-loved American Catholic Bishop and apologist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, described him as follows in his epic defence of the Catholic Faith titled, "The Faith of Our Fathers" (published in 1876):


"...Not to cite too many examples, let me quote for you only the beautiful letter addressed by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, to the son of King James II of England. This letter not only reflects the sentiments of his own heart, but formularizes in this particular the decrees of the Church, of which he was a distinguished ornament..."

- Cardinal James Gibbons, 1876


With this in mind read the words of Archbishop Francois Fenelon (1651 – 1715), over 300 years ago.


"...Above all, never force your subjects to change their religion. No human power can reach the impenetrable recess of the free will of the heart. Violence can never persuade men; it serves only to make hypocrites. Grant civil liberty to all, not in approving everything as indifferent, but in tolerating with patience whatever Almighty God tolerates, and endeavoring to convert men by mild persuasion...THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG in matters of religious belief must be accorded, otherwise we produce hypocrites instead of persons with an enlightened belief that is fully their own. If the truth be mighty and God all-powerful, His children need not fear that disaster will follow freedom of thought...If we allow the world to hinder us, then our professed freedom is only a word...To abandon the sentiment of humanity is not merely to renounce civilization and to relapse into barbarism, it is to share in the blindness of the most brutish brigands and savages; it is to be a man no longer, but a cannibal..."

- Archbishop François Fénelon (6 August 1651 – 7 January 1715) (Let. 30)


The teaching of the Church throughout history has been clear and Vatican II merely confirmed this doctrine.

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Vouthon

Well I am very impressed by Bishop Fellay I must say

What he says, brother Jreducation, is in line with my own thinking.

I have always maintained that error has no rights and that the Council never intended to revoke this belief of the nineteenth century papacy but rather uphold the perrenial teaching of the Catholic Church that faith cannot be compelled and that people have the freedom/right to be wrong/in error especially in matters of religion/civil sphere. This is because the dignity of the human person and their free-willed adherence too conscience is inviolable and impenetrable, under no human authority, subject to no outside compulsion, only answerable to God alone.


"...We decree moreover that no Christian shall compel them or any one of their group to come to baptism unwillingly. But if any one of them shall take refuge of his own accord with Christians, because of conviction, then, after his intention will have been manifest, he shall be made a Christian without any intrigue. For, indeed, that person who is known to have come to Christian baptism not freely, but unwillingly, is not believed to posses the Christian faith..."

- Blessed Pope Gregory X, Decree on the Jews, 1272

This came right out of the mandate that St. Francis gave to the brothers after he signed the accord with the Sultan. In the original letter to the friars it said, "I command, under penalty of grave sin, that no friar shall compel any Jew or Muslim to come to baptism uniwillingly . . . if it is not their desire and if they do not approach the brothers, the brothers are bound by charity and justice to leave them in peace."

At this time, Pope Gregory elevated the Province of Jerusalem to a personal custody and renamed it the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land. To ensure that Jews were left in peace by the Christians, who were under the governance of the Franciscan Custos, the jurisdiction was placed directly under the oversight of the pope and remains that way until today. The superior general governs it with the oversight of the Holy See.

I believe that Pope Gregory also tried to protect the Jews in Spain at the request of the Dominicans.

"...The Church is wont to take earnest heed that 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...”

- (Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei 1885)


"...Men ought not to be compelled to believe, because God will have mercy on those whom he will have mercy. As man fell by his own free will in listening to the wiles of the serpent, so man can only be converted by his free acceptance of the Christian faith..."

- (Fourth Council of Toledo, 633)

This was the argument of St. Vincent Ferrer when he preached to the Jews in Southern Spain. It won him the affection oft the Jews, their respect and many converts. He never argued that mercy as only for Catholics. He argued that Catholic had full access to mercy.

"...Let no Jew be constrained to receive baptism, and he that will not consent to be baptized, let him not be molested. Let no one unjustly seize their property, disturb their feasts, or lay waste their cemeteries..."

- Pope Innocent III, 1198

This policy was already in effect when Francis made his alliance with the Sultan agreeing that the Franciscans would travel to the Holy Land, but would not preach to the Muslims and the Jews. He never agreed to turn them away.

"...Faith should be a matter of persuasion, not of imposition..."

- Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, 1090 –1153

Bl. John Paul said that evangelization invites, it does not proselytize.

This was explained beautifully by the great Catholic mystic Archbishop Francois Fenelon in the 17th century. Cardinal James Gibbons, the famous and well-loved American Catholic Bishop and apologist of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, described him as follows in his epic defence of the Catholic Faith titled, "The Faith of Our Fathers" (published in 1876):


"...Not to cite too many examples, let me quote for you only the beautiful letter addressed by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, to the son of King James II of England. This letter not only reflects the sentiments of his own heart, but formularizes in this particular the decrees of the Church, of which he was a distinguished ornament..."

- Cardinal James Gibbons, 1876


With this in mind read the words of Archbishop Francois Fenelon (1651 – 1715), over 300 years ago.


"...Above all, never force your subjects to change their religion. No human power can reach the impenetrable recess of the free will of the heart. Violence can never persuade men; it serves only to make hypocrites. Grant civil liberty to all, not in approving everything as indifferent, but in tolerating with patience whatever Almighty God tolerates, and endeavoring to convert men by mild persuasion...THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG in matters of religious belief must be accorded, otherwise we produce hypocrites instead of persons with an enlightened belief that is fully their own. If the truth be mighty and God all-powerful, His children need not fear that disaster will follow freedom of thought...If we allow the world to hinder us, then our professed freedom is only a word...To abandon the sentiment of humanity is not merely to renounce civilization and to relapse into barbarism, it is to share in the blindness of the most brutish brigands and savages; it is to be a man no longer, but a cannibal..."

- Archbishop François Fénelon (6 August 1651 – 7 January 1715) (Let. 30)


The teaching of the Church throughout history has been clear and Vatican II merely confirmed this doctrine.

Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[Dan Daly]

Originally Posted by JReducation

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

I do believe we are in agreement. The difficulty comes because a great many Catholics and non-Catholics alike have poorly formed consciences and don't recognize the natural law God has written on their hearts. In practice, this makes seperating "morals" from "religion" difficult. I can see a great many people saying "no the government shouldn't force people against contraception to support it, but it shouldn't violate my religious beliefs by prohibiting me from using it."

As I said, I support the state banning contraception (understanding this does not appear likely at the present moment, but it is a worthy goal to work towards). If that were to happen, a great many religious beliefs would be violated. Of course those beliefs are objectively wrong and harmful to the public good.

That's why we need to start educating people, Catholic and not, about what a conscience really is and about natural law.

I always appreciate your comments on the boards JReducation.

Pax Christi

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

I do believe we are in agreement. The difficulty comes because a great many Catholics and non-Catholics alike have poorly formed consciences and don't recognize the natural law God has written on their hearts. In practice, this makes seperating "morals" from "religion" difficult. I can see a great many people saying "no the government shouldn't force people against contraception to support it, but it shouldn't violate my religious beliefs by prohibiting me from using it."

As I said, I support the state banning contraception (understanding this does not appear likely at the present moment, but it is a worthy goal to work towards). If that were to happen, a great many religious beliefs would be violated. Of course those beliefs are objectively wrong and harmful to the public good.

That's why we need to start educating people, Catholic and not, about what a conscience really is and about natural law.

I always appreciate your comments on the boards JReducation.

Pax Christi

I agree with you. I think part of the problem is that most people don't understand the word "religion". The contemporary usage of the term is very Protestant. The only two groups that I know who have the same understanding of religion are Catholics and Jews. As Mother Miriam (Rosiland Moss), Br. Bob Fisham, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and St. Edith Stein and I always say, "Catholicism is very Semitic." Take away all of the pageantry out of the 23 Catholic Churches and leave the raw material and you're left with a Christian Judaism composed of: Scripture, theology, observances/sacraments and moral law.

Neither Judaism nor Catholicism equates moral law with religion. Moral law is absolute and universal. It is written into the heart of man waiting to be discovered.

The way that we use the term "religion" today is not how Catholics and Jews used it until the Protestant Reformation. Reading ancient writings, especially the spiritual masters, we see that Jews and Catholics used the term religion to mean "the way". It did not refer to institutions, cultures or churches. For example, St. Bernard and St. Francis both refer to "our holy religion". Many people think that they're talking about Catholicism. They were not. They never thought of Catholicism as a religion. The expression, "Our holy religion" referred to the way of life of their respective communities. Hence, a religious was one who followed "the way". A consecrated religious was one who vowed to follow the way and to get it right or forfeit his or her soul, if he did not achieve the way of perfect charity. It was an alliance (re- ligiio cum-sacris). A re-covenant with the sacred, hence, consecrated religious. It had nothing to do with denominations and institutions, but it went deeper. It was about one's journey to God.

In their minds, the state had nothing to do with this. The state's duty was to protect the moral order, not to protect "the way". The way did not need protection, least of all from the state whom both Bernard and Francis looked at with mistrust. That's why they prohibited their followers from pledging allegiance to flags, nations, rulers and forms of government.

Religious liberty meant freedom to follow the way to God and they understood that people make that journey down different roads. Those who are truly searching for God will, if they live long enough, end up in the Church, even if they begin their journey from some other starting point. The best examples of this are Elizabeth Ann Seton, John Henry Newman and Edith Stein. These were non Catholics, but sincere in their search for truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[mytruepower2]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

I do believe we are in agreement. The difficulty comes because a great many Catholics and non-Catholics alike have poorly formed consciences and don't recognize the natural law God has written on their hearts. In practice, this makes seperating "morals" from "religion" difficult.

Speaking personally, I think the reason I never found the "natural law" line of reasoning compelling -is- that it seems to depend on what "God has written on their hearts."

I'm a horrible sinner, by nature, and when I hear "written in my heart," I assume that means I must have some inner desire to do the right, even in the face of failure. I don't have this, and this may be why I take it as absolutely necessary for religion to safeguard morality in the public square.

It just seems perfectly obvious to me that secular society fails at this sooner or later.

[Dan Daly]

Originally Posted by mytruepower2

Speaking personally, I think the reason I never found the "natural law" line of reasoning compelling -is- that it seems to depend on what "God has written on their hearts."

I'm a horrible sinner, by nature, and when I hear "written in my heart," I assume that means I must have some inner desire to do the right, even in the face of failure. I don't have this, and this may be why I take it as absolutely necessary for religion to safeguard morality in the public square.

It just seems perfectly obvious to me that secular society fails at this sooner or later.

You are a horrible sinner, and you are good by nature. Same for all of us. God made all of creation, including men and women...good.

Man is fallen but not totally corrupt. As a consequence of original sin, there is indeed a tendancy to do evil, but man's nature is still good. Natural law and the role of the state in preserving public order are not opposed to each other, but go hand in hand together.

[mytruepower2]

Originally Posted by Dan Daly

You are a horrible sinner, and you are good by nature. Same for all of us. God made all of creation, including men and women...good.

Man is fallen but not totally corrupt. As a consequence of original sin, there is indeed a tendancy to do evil, but man's nature is still good. Natural law and the role of the state in preserving public order are not opposed to each other, but go hand in hand together.

Regardless, our current nature is a fallen one, and so we're likely to fail when left to our own devices.

My point is merely that the tremendous struggle involved in repeatedly doing what I least want to do (the right thing,) needs to be driven by something bigger than just a gaggle of human beings; however they arrange themselves.

This is why I try not to separate morality and religion. Aside from the ontological question (morality has no objective basis unless God exists,) the continued lack of serious religious presence within society taxes my ability to motivate myself to continue the fight against sin.

I admit that this problem with motivations is largely subjective, but if -I- can have this problem, I'm willing to bet that others can have it too.

[Bryan77]

I'm confused. Why are people arguing against Religious Liberty? Did popes in the past really speak against it? How can the government forcing us to supply abortions and contraceptives be a good thing? Or worse, if they start making it illegal to celebrate Mass, like they did in Mexico not too long ago.

So if our rights as Catholics are being persecuted by the government, we're supposed to just sit back and let it happen? I don't understand the logic behind that.


(The linked article has been deleted)

[mytruepower2]

Originally Posted by Bryan77

I'm confused. Why are people arguing against Religious Liberty? Did popes in the past really speak against it? How can the government forcing us to supply abortions and contraceptives be a good thing? Or worse, if they start making it illegal to celebrate Mass, like they did in Mexico not too long ago.

So if our rights as Catholics are being persecuted by the government, we're supposed to just sit back and let it happen? I don't understand the logic behind that.


(The linked article has been deleted)

"Religious Liberty" is political shorthand for "not persecuting the church in America," but outside of political circles, it carries a much broader meaning.

You see, what "religious liberty," really means is that if you belong to something that you can -call- a religion, you have the right to exercise the practices of that religion, regardless of what the law says, and this has -never- been the position of the church.

The church's position is that the -law- needs to be in conformity with authentic morality, in order to be a genuine law. When a law oppressively forces people to commit immoral acts, it is not a law, but a perversion of law.

Why is this distinction so important? Because, if my religion happens to value the chopping off of people's heads as a religious ceremony, and we have undisputed religious freedom, how will you stop me? This is ultimately the question we need to ask about where "religious freedom" begins and ends.

The only possible answer is that it ends when a religion commands you to do something immoral.

Because of this, this battle for "religious freedom" cannot be won as long as it's the freedom we're concerned with. We need to get back to the cold hard facts. God exists. Objective moral values exist. Some things are right. Others are wrong. Even governments must take heed to this, or bring about their own ruin. We can't fight on the enemy's territory of "we want our rights." We need to start saying "what they're doing is evil" again.

[Bryan77]

I see. That makes a lot of sense. I thought about the same thing myself.

So is the "Fortnight For Freedom" that the Bishops have called for a good thing or a bad thing? And what about the recent Religious Freedom Rallys?

[mytruepower2]

Originally Posted by Bryan77

I see. That makes a lot of sense. I thought about the same thing myself.

So is the "Fortnight For Freedom" that the Bishops have called for a good thing or a bad thing? And what about the recent Religious Freedom Rallys?

Well, in and of itself, it's a good thing, but it could have grave consequences that they've chosen to stand on the ground of "freedom" rather than "objective morality." I consider that decision a wrong one.