Religious freedom on the decline says new report

Religious freedom is declining globally, according to new research.

The report, published by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, shows that more than 2.2 billion people – about a third of the world’s population – live in countries where government restrictions or social hostilities involving religion are increasing.

The survey, entitled Rising Restrictions on Religion, also finds that Europe had the largest proportion of countries in which social hostilities related to religion were on the rise from mid-2006 to mid-2009.

ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=1615

This is what happens when Catholics vote for immoral politicians - in Countries where voting is permitted.
The enemy is us - in our lack of responsible voting.

SCANDAL must not be permitted by any Bishop. Correction must take place along with not permitting those obstinate in Mortal Sin being allowed to receive Holy Communion.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

I agree. But not only about voting: standing up for the faith in a number of situations would make people respect us and our religion.

Isn’t traditional Catholicism against freedom of Religion?

Back in the day when the Church was the only Christian religion, otherwise Aquinas wouldn’t have burned ‘heretics’ or Lutherans. But not when other sects began surfacing. Here’s the CCC in regards to freedom of religion:

1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

No.

There are only good Catholics and bad Catholics, not - traditional vs non-traditional or conservative vs liberal.
Good Catholics do their best to adhere to the teachings of the Church contained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.

CCC - **" **1738 Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect.
The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order. "

CCC - **" **1907 First, the **common good **presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person.
Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion. "

CCC - " 1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator.
The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to
reject authoritative teachings
.
"**

CCC - **" **1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility.
This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. "

CCC - " 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice.
We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross.
We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church. "

oops. dupe.

I agree to your points about our needing to refer to the CCC.

However, if I may… In the context of this topic, for an accurate adjective of a Catholic there’s no such thing as:

  • a ‘traditional’ Catholic or a ‘non-traditional’ Catholic. Because that would seem to mean a Catholic who either does, or does not, decide that the 2nd Vatican Council was valid or authoritative. A Catholic who accepts the 2nd Vatican Council isn’t even considered to be ‘non-traditional’ if only because such a term as ‘non-traditional’ does NOT have a meaning. In other words, that approach to use the term ‘traditional’ describes someone who is setting themselves up for if not heresy, at least practicing a schism from the Church when what they are trying to do is to remain FAITHFUL to what they (wrongly) consider the Church, herself, to be.

  • There’s no such thing, either, as a ‘conservative’ Catholic or a ‘liberal’ Catholic. Unless, of course, you’re talking about any particular Catholic’s political preference in the public square. That particular Catholic may, or may not consider themselves to be ‘traditional.’

The correct term is “practicing” Catholics. If you’re a Catholic, you’re either a Catholic who is living according to Church teachings. Or, not. And if not, the correct adjective is ‘non-practicing’ Catholic.

For example, there are Catholics who politically are liberal (such as Nancy Pelosi) yet claim to be practicing the Catholic faith. According to her public record, she is NOT practicing the Catholic faith. And so, the correct adjective(s) for her are both – non-practicing, liberal Catholic.

As for “good” or “bad” – those are value-laden terms which seem to indicate whether the person sins, or not.

Um. We all sin. We all are prone to sin. Which is why the Catholic church is full of sinners. Like me. A practicing Catholic.

Hope my attempt here to clarify the exact meanings of those adjectives will help us all to talk on a level playing field.

Bottom line – The correct adjective is – “practicing.”

Come on, rence, you know better.
Guess you skipped your morning coffee.

Aquinas died in 1274.
Luther was born in 1483.
Conclusion: Aquinas did not burn Lutherans.
I can’t recall that he burned any heretics either!

The results of this survey
are no surprise at all (to me).

Just because I said ‘traditional’ does not mean I was referring to the common ‘traditional far right extremist sect’ or classifying it as the ‘true Catholicism’. I was asking because I heard that many traditionalists do not believe in religious freedom, and if the Church once preached against it.

Oh, Okay. I understand better now what you meant to be heard as saying.

I dunno. I’d have to ask a “Traditionalist” what it is, exactly, they believe about “religious freedom.”

I know that the Church teaches that we are all made in the image of God. Each of us with our own free will.

The Church never taught against religious freedom. For without religious freedom, nobody can ever freely choose to be Catholic!

Maybe I still misundertand your point? Perhaps if you gave an example or a specific, named source of where you heard what you said you heard the Church taught about your point, that would help. :shrug:

I don’t think that is true. During Vatican II, the Church seemed to articulate a vision which condemned past behavior and emphasize a different aspect of its teaching.

The Declaration on Religious Freedom stated that, because of human dignity, each person had the civil right to religious liberty and to practice religious belief in community with others. This was a sharp departure from centuries of church teaching that complete religious freedom belonged only to the Catholic Church as an institution because it contained the fullness of divine truth.

“The Catholic Church had condemned religious freedom in the 19th century,” said Baum, now a retired religious studies professor at McGill University, Montreal

The previous position was that “truth has all the rights and error has no rights,” said Baum.

In practice this meant that because they were following an erroneous religion, non-Catholics had no right to religious freedom and at best could be tolerated in society, he said.

When the declaration was finally approved, it also included a confession of past church transgressions against religious freedom.

“Although in the life of the people of God … there has at times appeared a form of behavior which was hardly in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel and was even opposed to it, it has always remained the teaching of the church that no one is to be coerced into believing,” said the declaration.

This confession was suggested by Cardinal Josef Beran of Prague in the then communist-ruled Czechoslovakia. Noting the burning of heretics and the forced conversions to Catholicism in his country’s history, Cardinal Beran asked that the council approve the declaration “in a spirit of atonement for past sins.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505798.htm

Catholics should not categorize/label themselves to avoid following the teachings of the Church.
We must adhere to ALL the teachings in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” to the best of our ability.
Labelling oneself is an attempt to “pick and choose” thus being a cafeteria Catholic.

Conservative/Liberal, Traditional/non-traditional are not the teachings of Christ.

" The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I have approved…and the publication of which I order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic Doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium.
I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the Faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.
"
- Pope John Paul II,
(CCC - Pg 5)

As he never held any civil office (in fact as he was a Dominican priest, both Church and State barred him from holding any civil office), he would not have been in a position to either administer the death penalty to anyone for any offence, nor to authorise anyone else to do so.

Possibly what Rence is trying to refer to, is that somewhere in his voluminous writings, Aquinas probably defended, in principle, the right of the properly constituted civil authority to administer the death sentence for certain crimes, probably including heresy.
The Church still supports this principle today. This is not incompatible with her support for the principle that civil authorities must allow freedom of religion, which does not extend to permitting activities which infringe the basic rights of others.

No Catholic bishop or theologian ever agreed that the State has the right to kill people because of what they believe. This idea of “thought crime” was invented by the Protestant rulers. However in some circumstances the Church approved of the State punishing the public propagation of heresy because of the harm that it did to the State and its citizens and to their rights to live in peace. In all cases the Church insisted, despite the trenchant opposition of some State rulers, that every effort must be made to allow the heretic to repent and so avoid execution.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.