Religious Liberty Condemned?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' date='10 March 2010 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1268273637' post='2070682']
It says non-Catholics have the *right* to [b]witness[/b] to their faith and teach publically. That this is referring to preaching is indicated in the next sentence when it says, "in spreading religious faith..." (it's not the Catholic Faith that's being spread!)

How did you interpret the quote?
[/quote]

I interpreted it according to what it says. It clearly says that religious communities have the right not to be hindered. That doesn't mean that they have the right to witness, it means that they have the right not to be hindered. There is a moral distinction. It's the same moral distinction made earlier in the document.

"[b]Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered[/b] [i]in their public teaching and witness to their faith[/i], whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others."

[mortify]

[quote name='Raphael' date='10 March 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1268277589' post='2070720']
I interpreted it according to what it says. It clearly says that religious communities have the right not to be hindered. That doesn't mean that they have the right to witness, it means that they have the right not to be hindered. There is a moral distinction. It's the same moral distinction made earlier in the document.[/quote]

It is the same thing, ultimately.

By not hindering, a right to freely preach non-Catholicism is granted. The reality is error has no right to voice itself publically, the State is fully just in suppressing its spread, and doing so would hardly be coercion to Catholicism. Many a Catholic Kingdom had large numbers of non-Catholic subjects, these groups practiced their faith according to their ways, but this doesn't mean they were permitted to spread their faith among Catholics.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' date='10 March 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1268282283' post='2070740']
It is the same thing, ultimately.

By not hindering, a right to freely preach non-Catholicism is granted. The reality is error has no right to voice itself publically, the State is fully just in suppressing its spread, and doing so would hardly be coercion to Catholicism. Many a Catholic Kingdom had large numbers of non-Catholic subjects, these groups practiced their faith according to their ways, but this doesn't mean they were permitted to spread their faith among Catholics.
[/quote]
It's not the same thing, unless you're a consequentialist. The consequences appear the same, but there is an enormous difference between the object of the act of supporting a pseudo-right to believe whatever you want and the object of the act of condemning coercion to follow an unwanted belief. The two positions are entirely different, morally speaking, no matter how much they may seem to achieve the same consequences.

I insist that all people ought to worship the one, true God, but because true worship may only exist in a will that is free, I must advocate that we have a society where worship is free. This does not mean that I'm an advocate of the abuse of that freedom; on the contrary, I will support Catholicism and I think they state should support it, but enforcing it removes the ability for worship to be free, and therefore is unacceptable. It would keep Catholics, as well as others, from worshiping freely.

[mortify]

[quote name='Raphael' date='11 March 2010 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1268284967' post='2070756']
It's not the same thing, unless you're a consequentialist. The consequences appear the same, but there is an enormous difference between the object of the act of supporting a pseudo-right to believe whatever you want and the object of the act of condemning coercion to follow an unwanted belief. The two positions are entirely different, morally speaking, no matter how much they may seem to achieve the same consequences.[/quote]

I'm glad you bring up consequences because the consequences [i]are[/i] the same. But even the causes leading up the consequence are the same, since not hindering non-Catholic preaching is the same as saying they can freely preach, the difference is in perspective, one negative the other positive.

To me the document's position is similar to a Catholic Politician saying they personally disagree with abortion but will permit a woman's right to choose. Is there a huge moral difference between this position and the one that is explicitly in support of abortion? I don't think so. If something is wrong it has no right to exist, let alone be an option. And so if you believe people have a moral obligation to be Catholic, and error doesn't have a "right" to spread itself, then you must support the State's right to suppress error and defend truth.

However you want to put it, has the Church ever said error has a **right** not to be hindered?

[quote]I will support Catholicism and I think they state should support it, but enforcing it removes the ability for worship to be free, and therefore is unacceptable.[/quote]

How can the State support Catholicism without appearing coercive?

[mortify]

Raphael, this condemned statement from the OP is worth repeating:

[color="#0000FF"]"[b]Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the [color="#FF0000"]public exercise[/color] of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.[/b] [/color]

Edited March 12, 2010 by mortify

[Veridicus]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' date='11 March 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1268361584' post='2071469']
I'm glad you bring up consequences because the consequences [i]are[/i] the same. But even the causes leading up the consequence are the same, since not hindering non-Catholic preaching is the same as saying they can freely preach, the difference is in perspective, one negative the other positive.[/quote]

All persons have the moral obligation to follow the Gospel to the degree that they are aware of its truth. The nature of authentic worship and love requires that man is free, because love requires freedom. Therefore, all governments have the obligation to provide an environment free of coercion in religious matters. A person who is coerced into loving God does not love God at all. The object of the act in question is to remove coercion that keeps man from being free, the intention is to allow man to love and worship God freely. There are two possible effects. One effect is good, namely, that people will more freely love and worship God. The other effect is bad, namely, that people will abuse their freedom to turn away from God. The principle of double effect may be used here. The good effect is as immediate as the bad, the object and intention of the act are both good, the circumstances provide no alternative (the only other way to keep society Catholic is coercion, which would require a morally bad act).

There's a huge difference between removing coercion so that people may have the freedom to do what is right, even if they abuse that freedom, and telling people they are free to do what is wrong. The first of these God did in the Garden of Eden (the punishment was not imposed arbitrarily, but was a natural consequence of their abuse of freedom; in the same way, the government could promote Christianity and point out the natural consequences of rejecting grace, but could not impose arbitrary punishments, which would be coercion); the second of these would be if God took on the part of Satan and pointed out that they could, in fact, eat from the tree, even though it was forbidden. There is a huge difference, unless you mean to equate God and Satan.

[quote]To me the document's position is similar to a Catholic Politician saying they personally disagree with abortion but will permit a woman's right to choose. Is there a huge moral difference between this position and the one that is explicitly in support of abortion? I don't think so. If something is wrong it has no right to exist, let alone be an option. And so if you believe people have a moral obligation to be Catholic, and error doesn't have a "right" to spread itself, then you must support the State's right to suppress error and defend truth.[/quote]

I support the state's right to speak out against error, but not to coerce the erring. Truth should be preached and practiced by the government, but penalties should not be applied to the erring, especially not to those judged as possessing invincible ignorance. Nonetheless, the state should evangelize. Never did the Apostles attempt to coerce those who would not follow them, they only warned people against their errors and what their errors would result in. This is what separates Christian evangelization from Muslim jihad. Even in Acts 5, Peter is careful to say that the reason those who break with the Christian community must die is that they have lied to the Holy Spirit and death comes from God, not man, in that case. We do not coerce.

As for abortion, if you want to use that analogy, Vatican II made it clear that the stipulation "within due limits" applied. Any religion that would murder is clearly outside of due limits. Those in government and the citizens in general should point out the errors of those who feel that they may separate their beliefs from their moral lives. They may also vote out these sorts of politicians. Making threats that they will not be re-elected is not coercion from the state, but from the voters, and it is not coercion against the politician's beliefs; rather, it is coercion against the fact that the politician's actions and beliefs do not agree, and that makes him dishonest.

[quote]However you want to put it, has the Church ever said error has a **right** not to be hindered?[/quote]

Error must be hindered, but not through the coercion of those in error. "The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power" (DH 1). The government should propose the truth of the Gospel for the belief of its citizens.

[quote]How can the State support Catholicism without appearing coercive?
[/quote]

Without appearing coercive? I don't know. I'm sure someone will always say it appears coercive. They say that now, even in our secular society. As I said above, the state may preach Catholicism and actively support Catholicism, even to the exclusion of other faiths from public support, but not supporting a person's beliefs is entirely different from coercing him into different beliefs.

[quote name='mortify' date='11 March 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1268366804' post='2071541']
Raphael, this condemned statement from the OP is worth repeating:

[color="#0000FF"]"[b]Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the [color="#FF0000"]public exercise[/color] of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.[/b] [/color]
[/quote]

The words "as a right" are implied by the text. Again, I say that no one has the right to worship as they wish except for Catholics; nonetheless, the right of Catholics to worship freely and the right of all people to worship as Catholics requires that all people be free of coercion. There is no right to practice anything else, but the right not to be coerced so as to love and worship God freely can be abused. Nevertheless, there is no way to discipline abusers without violating the very principle of non-coercion, but the state may preach Catholicism, and therein hope to win them for Christ.

It's a thin line and a middle ground; sometimes, this is where a Catholic must stand if he is to stand with the Church.

[Veridicus]

[mortify]

[quote name='Raphael' date='12 March 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1268454310' post='2072209']
All persons have the moral obligation to follow the Gospel to the degree that they are aware of its truth. The nature of authentic worship and love requires that man is free, because love requires freedom. Therefore, all governments have the obligation to provide an environment free of coercion in religious matters.[/quote]

The essential problem is that you are elevating the rights of man above the rights of God. God is the source of all authority and therefore all authority, including the State, must subject itself to the rule of Christ the King. This includes a duty to uphold the truth and protect people from falsehood, although [b]it does not mean that it can force people into Catholicism[/b], nor does it mean that non-Catholics can't exercise their religious practices [i]to some extent[/i]. It does however mean that a State has the right to hinder and even suppress falsehood, even though it be the free will of men to spread it. Consider the millions of dollars rich Saudis pour into spreading Islamic radicalism in the West, it's creating a situation where the children of moderate Muslim immigrants are radicalized, and the West foolishly permits it because of it's sense of "freedom." Do you really think a Catholic State would be wrong to suppress such activities?

[quote]A person who is coerced into loving God does not love God at all. The object of the act in question is to remove coercion that keeps man from being free, the intention is to allow man to love and worship God freely. There are two possible effects. One effect is good, namely, that people will more freely love and worship God. The other effect is bad, namely, that people will abuse their freedom to turn away from God. The principle of double effect may be used here. The good effect is as immediate as the bad, the object and intention of the act are both good, the circumstances provide no alternative (the only other way to keep society Catholic is coercion, which would require a morally bad act).[/quote]

A society can uphold truth and suppress falsehood without forcing people into Catholicism.

[quote]I support the state's right to speak out against error, but not to coerce the erring. Truth should be preached and practiced by the government, but penalties should not be applied to the erring, especially not to those judged as possessing invincible ignorance. Nonetheless, the state should evangelize. Never did the Apostles attempt to coerce those who would not follow them, they only warned people against their errors and what their errors would result in. This is what separates Christian evangelization from Muslim jihad. Even in Acts 5, Peter is careful to say that the reason those who break with the Christian community must die is that they have lied to the Holy Spirit and death comes from God, not man, in that case. We do not coerce.
[/quote]

I think there's been a misunderstanding, I never supported the idea that people can be coerced into Catholicism. The Church has always forbidden this. What I disagree with is the idea that the erring have a *right* not to be hindered from spreading their errors, the result of which endangers the eternal fate of souls. This is no different than the State speaking up against abortion but not doing anything to close down abortion mills.

[quote]
The words "as a right" are implied by the text. Again, I say that no one has the right to worship as they wish except for Catholics; nonetheless, the right of Catholics to worship freely and the right of all people to worship as Catholics requires that all people be free of coercion. There is no right to practice anything else, but the right not to be coerced so as to love and worship God freely can be abused. Nevertheless, there is no way to discipline abusers without violating the very principle of non-coercion, but the state may preach Catholicism, and therein hope to win them for Christ.[/quote]

So when the Church put the writings of heterodox theologians on the index, she was morally wrong? How about when she excommunicated erring clerics and forbid them to administer and receive the sacraments? And what of the crusade against the Albigensians and the numerous inquisitions? I suppose in all these cases the Church was morally wrong for coercing people against a will they must exercise freely, because to punish might impede their freedom to worship God? Don't you see that by holding the freedom of man to the supreme [i]the worship of God has been impeded[/i]?
[size="3"][i]
[color="#0000FF"]"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, [color="#FF0000"]conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of [u]indifferentism[/u].[/color] -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. [/color][/i][/size]


Ask yourself how many souls are lost to perdition because this so called "right."

[mortify]

Raphael, consider the following:

[i][color="#0000FF"][size="3"]"[A] totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "[u]liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right[/u], which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which [color="#FF0000"][u]should be restrained by [b]no[/b] authority[/u] whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by [u]word of mouth[/u], by the [u]press[/u], or in any other way."[/color] But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."[/size][/color][/i]
[b]
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, section 3[/b]

Edited March 14, 2010 by mortify

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' date='13 March 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1268534828' post='2072606']
The essential problem is that you are elevating the rights of man above the rights of God. God is the source of all authority and therefore all authority, including the State, must subject itself to the rule of Christ the King. This includes a duty to uphold the truth and protect people from falsehood, although [b]it does not mean that it can force people into Catholicism[/b], nor does it mean that non-Catholics can't exercise their religious practices [i]to some extent[/i]. It does however mean that a State has the right to hinder and even suppress falsehood, even though it be the free will of men to spread it. Consider the millions of dollars rich Saudis pour into spreading Islamic radicalism in the West, it's creating a situation where the children of moderate Muslim immigrants are radicalized, and the West foolishly permits it because of it's sense of "freedom." Do you really think a Catholic State would be wrong to suppress such activities?[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that the situation you propose would fall under the clause concerning due limits, which I already quoted for you.

As long as you admit, as you did above, that the state may not force people into Catholicism, I think you're on the right track. You also cite that it isn't your view that non-Catholics can't exercise their religious practices to some extent.

The state most certainly is subject to the authority of God and therefore must protect the God-given freedom necessary to worship Him in truth. This is ordained to the good, that all citizens of the state may be able to worship God freely according to the Catholic faith. However, it can be abused.

What I have said is only reinforced by your point.

[quote]A society can uphold truth and suppress falsehood without forcing people into Catholicism. [/quote]

I agree.

[quote]I think there's been a misunderstanding, I never supported the idea that people can be coerced into Catholicism. The Church has always forbidden this. What I disagree with is the idea that the erring have a *right* not to be hindered from spreading their errors, the result of which endangers the eternal fate of souls. This is no different than the State speaking up against abortion but not doing anything to close down abortion mills. [/quote]

The erring have a right not to be coerced or hindered by the state "either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government" (carried over from the previous paragraph) from spreading their errors. This is not because they have a right to spread error, but because they have a right not to be coerced. The right of freedom to worship God necessarily opens itself to abuse at the hands of those who would not worship God, but without that right, even Catholics would not worship freely, since they would have no other choice. The erring cannot be coerced in any way without stripping both them and Catholics of the freedom necessary to worship. If the erring are coerced, then there is no authentic freedom, even for the unerring, because if they were to abuse that freedom, they would be punished. Any other right may be punished at the hands of the civil government when it is abused, but not freedom, because in punishing an abuse of freedom (which nonetheless truly merits punishment), freedom itself is taken away.

The government may, however, officially sponsor and promote Catholicism and encourage by whatever moral means available the evangelization of the erring. In this way, truth is presented in a non-coercive manner. So there is nothing wrong with an official religion of any state, nor is there anything wrong with that religion receiving the support and funding of the state, even at the exclusion of other religions (although it's generally seen in history that this leads to corruption, but it's not inherently bad).

[quote]So when the Church put the writings of heterodox theologians on the index, she was morally wrong? How about when she excommunicated erring clerics and forbid them to administer and receive the sacraments? And what of the crusade against the Albigensians and the numerous inquisitions? I suppose in all these cases the Church was morally wrong for coercing people against a will they must exercise freely, because to punish might impede their freedom to worship God? Don't you see that by holding the freedom of man to the supreme [i]the worship of God has been impeded[/i]? [/quote]

We are talking about religious freedom with regard to the state. Clearly, the Church may discipline her own who go astray, whether their books are condemned or they are excommunicated, or whether they are fought in more direct ways by the Church.

I am no expert on the inquisition, but if I recall correctly, the Church has apologized for incorrect treatment of certain religious groups through them. I also understand that a number of the Jews who were mistreated were baptized Christians who had taken on the name of Christ for social status, thus making them subjects of the Church (for however poor a reason).

The freedom of man is ordained toward the proper worship of God, but if even its abuse is hindered (via coercion) by the state, then freedom itself is lost. Freedom exists so that we may do what is right, but if it does not also allow us to do evil, then it is not truly freedom. Freedom allows us to choose. Where there is no free choice, there is no freedom, even for those who would use it rightly.

Obviously, however, the Vatican does specify that there are due limits to this, meaning that neither the Council nor I are holding human freedom as supreme.

[quote][size="3"][i]
[color="#0000FF"]"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, [color="#FF0000"]conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of [u]indifferentism[/u].[/color] -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. [/color][/i][/size]


Ask yourself how many souls are lost to perdition because this so called "right."
[/quote]

Ask yourself how many souls are lost to perdition because of dissent from a Church Council.

I have considered how many souls may be lost, but if God saw fit to grant us free will in choosing to follow Him, despite the numbers who might be damned, I cannot see how we could do otherwise. A government that advocates and supports the Catholic faith and does all it can without coercion against those within due limits is no more at fault if a soul chooses to abandon God than I would be for preaching and teaching without coercing my students into accepting the Catholic faith.

[quote name='mortify' date='14 March 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1268543347' post='2072740']
Raphael, consider the following:

[i][color="#0000FF"][size="3"]"[A] totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "[u]liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right[/u], which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which [color="#FF0000"][u]should be restrained by [b]no[/b] authority[/u] whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by [u]word of mouth[/u], by the [u]press[/u], or in any other way."[/color] But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."[/size][/color][/i]
[b]
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, section 3[/b]
[/quote]

The opinion he is condemning is nowhere near what I am proposing. He is speaking of liberty as an absolute right of all men in all areas, whereas I am upholding it as a limited right (due limits) in the area of religion. He is condemning it for saying that no authority may overcome it, whereas I am referring only to the authority of the state. He is speaking of a mindset that says, "I may believe whatever I wish according to my own wisdom and no one can tell me otherwise because my conscience is supreme." That view is rightly condemned. I am referring to a state with a mindset that says, "we wish all men to know the truth of the Catholic faith and to follow it with their whole person, mind, will, and body. This requires that they are able to follow it freely, since any worship without freedom is not true worship, and thus we must not coerce anyone into following Christ by punishing those who believe or speak otherwise. We will preach and support the Catholic faith entirely, but will not encourage anything else. We will even speak out against the errors of other beliefs, but we will not coerce them by force of law. We will also submit our teachings to the Magisterium and we will deliver to the Magisterium all in our land who claim to be Catholic yet profess error. We will also not permit the abuse of freedom to excuse violations of the rights of others."

Mort, I think you're doing what all too many people do - oversimplifying. I think you're taking quotes out of context and not seeing what they're actually saying. Nothing I've proposed violates any of the quotes you've thrown my way.

[mortify]

[quote name='Raphael' date='14 March 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1268594640' post='2073002']
The erring have a right not to be coerced or hindered by the state "either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government" (carried over from the previous paragraph) from spreading their errors. This is not because they have a right to spread error, but because they have a right not to be coerced.[/quote]

Hindering the erring from spreading their errors is not coercion, nor does it force the erring into the truth. What the Church, Catholic Civil Authority and even what secular authorities realize to a degree, is that at times the volition of men [i]must be curbed for the sake of the greater good. [/i]This is why society doesn't merely instruct us of the harm stealing does to our neighbor, but it punishes those who steal. Now we know there is something far worse than stealing a person's property and that is stealing someone's faith. The former affects a person transiently, the latter affects a person eternally and this is why the Church and State have historically hindered those who actively sought to spread error.

Now, what you're in effect saying is that[i] the greater good of society is what must be curbed,[/i] so that men may exercise their will freely. I understand you believe this doesn't mean people have a *moral* right to choose what is evil, and that is why you say they don't have a right to spread error, but ultimately you do believe they have a [b]*civil*[/b] right to do these things, even if that means risking the eternal souls of Catholics. You justify this by saying that there is no other alternative, because to do so would impede on man's freedom, and if you impede on the erring you ultimately impede on the believing, and therefore true worship of God will wane. I already pointed out that by looking at history this is simply not true. It is in our time, where religious liberty is proclaimed that indifferentism reigns supreme, as Pope Pius predicted would happen. Secondly, to curb those who abuse their freedom does not impede on another's freedom any more than punishing the thief doesn't affect the law abiding citizen. On the other hand, [b]to permit the erring to spread their error does impede on the rights of those who are worshipping God in truth and spirit,[/b] just as permitting the thief to steal impedes on the victim’s right to property. Lastly, men don't have the freedom not to be hindered, because freedom is not supreme, but must be exercised in due limits, and those limits include the preservation of truth and safeguard of the faithful.

So I agree with when you say we don't have the moral right to spread error, but I disagree with you when you say we have the civil right to spread error.


[quote]I have considered how many souls may be lost, but if God saw fit to grant us free will in choosing to follow Him, despite the numbers who might be damned, I cannot see how we could do otherwise. A government that advocates and supports the Catholic faith and does all it can without coercion against those within due limits is no more at fault if a soul chooses to abandon God than I would be for preaching and teaching without coercing my students into accepting the Catholic faith.[/quote]

I raise the analogy often and I'll do so again. Many politicians will say they personally believe abortion is morally wrong, but they will not do anything to have the civil authority put an end to abortion. The politicians are not forcing women to have abortions; does this therefore mean they are free of guilt? The answer is obviously no. There are many ways to participate in another’s sin, and that includes by consent. A state that permits the erring to spread their error consents to the error.

[quote]The opinion he is condemning is nowhere near what I am proposing. He is speaking of liberty as an absolute right of all men in all areas, whereas I am upholding it as a limited right (due limits) in the area of religion.He is condemning it for saying that no authority may overcome it, whereas I am referring only to the authority of the state.[/quote]

He mentions the areas of conscience and worship. Likewise he mentions men being free from ecclesiastical and *civil* authority.

[quote]He is speaking of a mindset that says, "I may believe whatever I wish according to my own wisdom and no one can tell me otherwise because my conscience is supreme." That view is rightly condemned. I am referring to a state with a mindset that says, "we wish all men to know the truth of the Catholic faith and to follow it with their whole person, mind, will, and body. This requires that they are able to follow it freely, since any worship without freedom is not true worship, and thus we must not coerce anyone into following Christ by punishing those who believe or speak otherwise. We will preach and support the Catholic faith entirely, but will not encourage anything else. We will even speak out against the errors of other beliefs, but we will not coerce them by force of law. We will also submit our teachings to the Magisterium and we will deliver to the Magisterium all in our land who claim to be Catholic yet profess error. We will also not permit the abuse of freedom to excuse violations of the rights of others."[/quote]

The Holy Father is referring to a liberty of worship because it is not restrained by a civil authority, thus men can preach and publish their ideas freely, which is ultimately the same thing you're proposing. The difference is you're trying to justify it with a positive intention, but consider what the Holy Father says:

[color="#0000FF"][i]"While they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; [u]whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.[/u]"[/i][/color]

Have we forgotten how carefully Christians should avoid such a thing? Do we naively think that men will not abuse such a civil liberty, and that the weak and innocent will not be beguiled astray? Is the value of not hindering the erring greater than the cost placed on the innocent? I personally don't think so.



Raphael, not sure if much more could be added that hasn't already been said. You're welcome to have the final word.

God bless you and may we both make it to heaven.


Pax Christi,
Mortify

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I'm not going to take the last word because I don't see much sense in this. I don't think either of us will see eye-to-eye with the other, perhaps because we both seem to be coming from different moral schools. In either case, this is clearly an area where the Church is still nuancing the arguments. I will always first and foremost seek to reconcile all Magisterial statements, trusting that if something doesn't seem to match up, it's because I am perceiving it incorrectly, not because this or that Magisterial proclamation is incorrect. I don't believe that any of the quotes you've provided are actually inconsistent with what Vatican II had to say on the matter, but as I said, I think it'd be fruitless for either of us to argue the actual points, since we'll just go around and around ad infinitem.

I do have one question, and if the answer is terribly obvious, please chalk up my asking it to the fact that last week was midterms and the week before that we were unpacking and the week before that we moved, etc. My question is: do you think Vatican II was incorrect or do you merely interpret it differently?

I suppose I ask because the whole reason I initially went through my religious conversion was the realization that Christ will not abandon His Church. When there is an apparent contradiction or something that seems to upset that realization, I always submit in faith to what the Church says and later come to realize that there was in fact no contradiction. Am I the only one who takes this position?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Not to open a can of worms (because as far as I'm concerned, the debate's over...I don't have the time), but I thought this might interest you: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html

[mortify]

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_C4FJDEwtpDc/SlLFp0jxJpI/AAAAAAAAAPI/sSYdQlb7nVE/S1600-R/murray.jpg[/img]


Fr John Courtney Murray S.J. was silenced in the 1950's for his writings on religious freedom.


In the 1960's he drafted the Vatican II document on religious freedom, [i]Dignitatis Humanae.[/i]