+
JMJ
One day (perhaps when I retire in 10+ years ) I'll go through this line by line. It would have been nicer (and easier) if they had simply responded to the dubia directly - line by line.
P^3
Source: Stomachosus Thomistarum
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY Response to the dubia presented by His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre- Pars I
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Response to the dubia presented by His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre
At the request of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, I have studied with care the large dossier prepared by His Excellency Msgr. Lefebrve, in which a certain number of dubia are presented on the possibility of reconciling Vatican II's doctrine on religious liberty and the prior magisterium.
Already in the different stages of the preparation of the Declaration Dignitatis humanæ, this question was very present and the definitive text of the Declaration itself, within its preamble, explicitly affirms that “the Council of the Vatican searches the sacred tradition and holy doctrine of the Church from whence it draws from the new in constant accord with the old” (DH no. 1). Likewise, afterwards, many theological studies, in commenting on the conciliar Declaration, tried to show how the indisputable newness which this document represents was in continuity and harmony with the prior magisterium.1 [Tradical: Ok - so we have an indisputable novelty ... must have been like a red cape in front of the Archbishop]
However, in order to respond to the question posed by Msgr. Lefebvre, it is not sufficient to publish from what is already handed down in the existing bibliography, and it was judged necessary to conduct a more detailed study, the result of which will be presented in the following pages.
I. PRESENTATION OF THE “DUBIA”OF MSGR. LEFEBVRE.
The dubia expressed in Msgr. Lefebrve's brief are different formulations of the same question: are the general perspective and the particular affirmations of Dignitatis humanae reconcilable with the prior magisterium?
In reality, they seem to express, in the manner of a question, a profound conviction that the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI have endorsed “liberal values (such as religious liberty),” which would, in reality, be “incompatible with the vision of the person and the city” as the popes of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century defended, under pain of condemnation.
This conviction is the object of a demonstrative essay within which the first part strongly emphasizes the idea of the Kingship of Christ and, indirectly, of the subordination of the temporal to the spiritual.
Three points, in particular, are attributed to the Council:
1. The dignity of the human person, as presented in Dignitatis humanae, consists uniquely in his nature alone, independently of his adhering to the true and the good. Consequently, the Council admits a moral liberty for error or evil, even a right to spread false doctrines.
2. Within this perspective, the truth would itself be relative: “The truth is no longer one, the Catholic religion no longer the only true one,” other religions have “values of salvation,” a “signification within the mystery of salvation, they are different paths for coming to God.”
3. From this, the principle of agnosticism and religious indifference of the State is also encouraged: it may act independently of the Church and place on the same level other religions (false religions). As such the state does not honor God with the worship of true religion unless it recognizes the Catholic religion as the religion of the State, positively fosters the good within the temporal order, and lends the aid of the secular arm against those who disturb the Evangelical order and the Kingship of Christ. The dubia also ask, if Dignitatis humanæ (in particular n. 13) does not exclude a particular protection of the Catholic Church by the State, contrary to the teaching of Leo XIII on the recognition and special favor due to the true religion by the State.
Apart from these general points, the Dubia question the “troubling parallelism” which arises from a comparison of different propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Encyclical Quanta cura with corresponding affirmations in Dignitatis humanæ.
II. PRESENTATION OF THE RESPONSE TO THE DUBIA
1. Granted the many aspects involved in the dubia, they all lead to an exposition of practically the entire doctrine of religious liberty, with many and inevitable repetitions[Tradical: I wonder if this is because DH repeats itself or is ambiguous?]. Moreover, an attempt to focus each response on an aspect more directly involved in each dubium could, in many cases, prove to be insufficient. Frequently, indeed, the dubia contain apparently secondary nuances, which are crucial for the response to be affirmative or negative.
2. Consequently, not only for reasons of brevity (to avoid repetitions), but above all for reasons of clarity and rigor of exposition, we prefer to give a detailed response to the aforementioned fundamental points. To the extent that these points will be clarified, it is certain that the other aspects of the dubia also will be, since they are consequences of the preceding fundamental points. However, because of the close relations which exist between these fundamental points, we cannot always avoid certain repetitions.
3. The study, long and meticulous, of which these pages are the result, was conducted with the deep conviction that the proposed problem necessitated the application of all the traditional criteria in interpreting texts of the magisterium2, in particular, the consideration of their historico-doctrinal context and their objective. However, this cannot make us forget that, frequently, the Roman Pontiffs, in the questions that occupied them, as in so many others, on the occasion of errors in contingent situations, issued teachings which went beyond this contingency, teachings more general, of permanent value, independently of historical circumstances. However, within the same cases, the awareness of these circumstances can be necessary to comprehend the precise content proposed permanently by the teaching.
4. Moreover, with the study of these questions, it will be necessary to also keep in mind that, as we know, the Tradition of the Church, of which the magisterium is the organ and the authentic interpretor of the faith, is a living reality. This Tradition cannot be a simple repetition, but includes a doctrinal development with continuity, as the history of the Church amply proves.3 The fact that on the question of religious liberty, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council represents, indubitably, a certain newness relative to the prior magisterium, cannot be a problem if it is a newness which is formed within this reality of “development within continuity.”
1 Cf., for example, the volume Vatican II. La liberté relígieuse, series “Unam Sancta,” n. 60, Ed. By Cerf, Paris 1967, in particular the article by John Courtney Murray, Vers une intelligence du développement de la doctrine de l'Eglise sur la liberté religieuse,(pp. 111-147). Cf. Also Nicolau, Magisterio eclesiástico sobre libertad religiosa. Conciliación armónic de sus enseñanzas,“Salmanticensis” 17 (1970) ppg 57 ff.
2 Cf. For example, S.C.D.F, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiæ, 24-VI-73, n. 5.
3 Cf. Vatican I, Constituion Dei Filius, chap. 4: DS 2020; Vatican II, Constitution Dei Verbum n. 8
http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.ca/2015/02/cdf-and-lefebrve-pars-ii-religious.html
CDF and Lefebvre pars II (Religious Liberty and Human Dignity)
Introduction
Pars I
III. RESPONSE TO FUNDAMENTAL POINTS
1. Religious liberty and human dignity according to the Declaration Dignitatis humanæ (hereafter, DH):
The right to religious liberty has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (DH, 2/a).
Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. (DH, 2/b).
Would, therefore, the conciliar doctrine, according to which the foundation of the right to religious liberty is located in the objective dignity of the person, based, in turn, on human nature, be incompatible with the traditional Catholic doctrine, such as what is expressed for example in the affirmation given by Leo XIII?
If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law.1
In first place, it is fitting to note that though the right to religious liberty is founded on the dignity of the person [Tradical: Saying it doesn't make it so ... I wonder where it states this ...], independently of the truth or error of the religion in question, it does not signify a denial of the fact that the recognition of truth and adherence to the good ought to be an integral part of the true dignity of man.
Indeed, the text of DH para. 2 does not say that the dignity of the human person consists uniquely in only his nature, independently of his adhering to the true and the good. What it affirms is that the ontological fact of being a person includes already a dignity which, on the civil level, requires among other things, the right to religious liberty which is seen in DH: “immunity from coercion in civil society” (DH, 1).
Which was the teaching of John XXIII:
It is always perfectly equitable to distinguish errors from those who stray through opinion, although it be done in the case of men who are captivated by error regarding the truth or by an inferior knowledge of things, whether with respect to sacred things or to the best activity of life. For a man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man nor does he lose his personal dignity, the account of which must, of course, always be held.2
On one hand, it must be noted that the teaching of Vatican II (in the text considered, DH, 2) is perfectly reconcilable with the teaching of the Church on the consequence of original sin. Original sin destroys the supernatural and preternatural dignity of man (based on grace and on other supernatural and preternatural gifts), but does not destroy his natural dignity, which was simply diminished, “in being changed for the worse”3 as human nature itself. For this reason, the liberty of man, which is without a doubt one of the chief manifestation of his ontological dignity, was not annihilate but only weakened.4
On the other, the teaching of Vatican II (DH, 2), is perfectly reconcilable with the teaching of Leo XIII already cited. As it was said, the dignity of the person presents certain fundamental aspects which cannot disappear, neither through sin nor error, and it is this dignity which is referred to in DH, 2. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, every man, even a sinner, is the image of God and at least a potential member of the Body of Christ.5
Philosophy, as well as the simple use of language, shows that there is also another sense of natural dignity, which includes the right use of the natural faculties, the adherence of the mind to truth and of the will to good. The affirmation of Leo XIII, according to which, by adhering to error and evil, man loses the natural dignity of his mind and will, is to be understood in this sense.
The teaching of DH on religious liberty also does not contradict the second part of the text of Leo XIII previously cited. Indeed, the right to religious liberty is understood as a civil and social immunity from coercion in religious matters, nor does it imply any right or permission to spread error. Quite the contrary, DH explicitly teaches that ever man has a grave duty to seek out and adhere to the true and the good:
Religious liberty does not prejudice the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of man and societies in respect to the true religion and the one Church of Christ. (DH, 1/c; cf. Also n. 2/b)
The corresponding Conciliar Commission, in its response to the second of the general drafts, explains it this way:
Furthermore, it should be observed that the approved text affirms a right the object of which is immunity from coercion and not the content of any religion. Immunity of this sort is based on the very dignity of the person. Nowhere is it affirmed, nor is it permitted to affirm (which is evident) that a right is given to diffuse error. But if persons diffuse error, this is not an exercise of the right, but an abuse of it. This abuse can and ought to be impeded if public order is gravely harmed, as is affirmed many times in the text and explained under n. 7.6
The right to religious liberty – recognizing again “that this does not satisfy the obligation to search out and adhere to the truth.” (DH, 2) – does not contradict the traditional Catholic doctrine as expressed by Pius XII in these terms:
That which does not correspond to truth or objectively to the moral law has no right to exist, to be spread or to its activity.7
Indeed, the doctrine of DH does not contradict the teaching on the “objective right” formulated in this text of Pius XII, because DH, 2 refers to a civil right to the immunity from coercion, and not to a right to spread error.
This interpretation is clearly required by the light of the Acts of the Council. Thus, for example, the Relatio de textu recomendatocomments on this in a detailed manner:
The question, whether a man has a right of acting from a true conscience, that he does not have from an erroneous conscience, is not treated. For the question is of the right of man in this sense, that the right asserts an immunity from coercion. Speaking more exactly, the question is, whether and under what conditions shall a right be granted on the part of others, and namely on the part of the public power, to impede man from acting publicly according to his conscience. But from this, that the conscience of the agent is erroneous it does not followthat a right is given to others of impeding his action. … . In today's question the principle that rights are not equally founded on truth and error is adduced in vain.Which certainly is true, if it is understood, that the right is not founded on error but in truth only. Again, nevertheless, it must be considered that the question today treats of right as an immunity from coercion. But a man of true conscience already enjoys immunity of this sort; still, the man of erroneous conscience also enjoys it, as long the right of impeding this or that external act of religion is granted to belong to another, namely to the public power.8
From all of this, we must conclude that the doctrine of DH cannot be understood as an affirmation of a right to spread error: the notion of religious liberty within DH does not refer to the relations of man or the State with truth or the good, but of man and the State with other men, indicating what man ought not do (to compel in religious matters).
Consequentially, religious liberty is a negative right.9 As every negation supposes an affirmation, this negative right supposes another positive right. But this positive right is not to spread error, but (which is at the same time a grave obligation) to search for the truth and render worship to God. This grave obligation is the foundation of the claim of the person to a social space for autonomous activity.
It was already said in this sense with the Conciliar gathering:
It helps to note that the schema of the Declaration does not affirm that a right is given to spread religious errors in society. For truly, both in itself and much more so in the current state of the question, an affirmation of this sort lacks all sense. For the question more precisely posited is whether and how the public power may by right coercively hinder a man who publicly witnesses his religious beliefs.10
And, further, the Conciliar Commission insists on these terms:
It is remembered that the text of the schema does not recognize a right to teaching falsehoods publicly, but affirms a right to immunity from constraint.11
On the other hand, DH does not affirm that the propagation of errors is a good. That which is good is that there exist within civil society a domain of juridical autonomy in religious matters, compatible with the public order and morality: DH, 7 speaks precisely of these limits of the right to liberty from coercion.
So it is understood that immunity from coercion in religious matters is not an evil: it is a good, as is the creation by God of human liberty, although it may result in sin. The right to religious liberty is ordered to the good, one of social conviviality based on friendship and liberty, that all may accomplish their duty to seek and adhere to the truth, and that of the liberty of the Church to be able to develop freely her divine mission of universal evangelization.
Within the regime of religious liberty, human liberty does not remain without a norm, because it is fully subject to the moral necessity imposed by ethical laws and it is exteriorly limited in religious matters within the sense indicated by DH, 7:
Furthermore, civil society has the right to protect itself against abuses which can be had under the pretext of religious liberty. It especially pertains to the civil power to provide protection of this sort, which, nevertheless, ought not to be done in an arbitrary manner or by unjustly favoring one party, but according to juridical norms, in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms are postulated from the effective protectionof the rights for all citizens and for their peacefulsettlement, both from a sufficient care of honest public peace, which is coexisting ordered in true justice, andfrom a due guardianship of public morality. All these constitute a fundamental part of the common good and fall under the account of public order. (DH 7, C)
Although the Declaration “does not intend to expound on particular applications of principles, especially if they involve complex questions,”12 it is certain, for example, that religious liberty does not exclude that the State ban divorce, polygamy, etc., and other things which their religion permits, without assuming the banning of other external manifestations of that religion which are not contrary to good public order.
Indeed, we must take into account that the reference to the objective moral order , introduced in the recognized text of DH, 7, was justified by the corresponding Relation as follows:
It is read: founded on the objective moral order. The addition is of great importance. It was introduced according to the mind of the Fathers who asked that in evaluating the public order a reason be held not only in respect to historical situations, but also, and primarily, in respect to those matters which are postulated by the objective moral order.13
However, the fact that all civil laws must be in agreement with the natural law does not signify that all demands of the natural law must be expressly taken up by the civil laws: it is evident that human law does not have to restrain all vice nor order all acts of virtue.14
Finally, it should be noted that, within the context of Pius XII's words, cited in note 10, there is explained the doctrine on tolerance, according to which:
The claim: Religious and moral error ought to be always impeded, as much as possible, because its tolerance is, in itself, immoral- cannot be evaluated unconditionally and absolutely.15
Although this doctrine of tolerance is not equivalent to the doctrine of religious liberty, there is no reason to affirm that they are irreconcilable. There is not an equivalence between them, because the principle of tolerance implies that the State has the right and the duty to repress the evil that consists in the diffusion of religious error, but it can and sometimes must give up the exercise of this right to obtain a superior and broader good. And this right is not recognized by the conciliar Declaration. However, there is no incompatibility between these affirmation, because, according to Pius XII, tolerance is justified in the interest of a superior good. But the idea of the Council is that the dignity of the every human person and social peace are always goods which require that the State not repress religious error when this is not oppose to good social order (which includes the public morality). There is then a novelty in the conception of the competence of the State in regard to the religious life of its citizens and a doctrinal development concerning the foundation of the absence of legal constrain in religious matters.
We must insist on the continuity of the teachings of DH and those of Leo XIII and Pius XII. From the first schemas of DH, there was explicitly sought this continuity with the previous magisterium in analyzing the texts of the Pontiffs previously cited. Thus the Relatio on the first schema presented to the Fathers of the Council explained:
Leo XIII already started the doctrinal evolution by clearly making the distinction between the Church, which is the people of God, and civil society, which is the temporal and terrestrial people (cf. Immortale Dei, A.S.S., 18, 1885, pp. 166-167; six other times the same doctrine evolved). Thus the way was opened to newly affirm an owed and licit autonomy, which belongs to the civil order and its judicial regulation. From which it happens that afurther step is already possible (a progressive rule), namely for a new judgment on that which are called “modern liberties.” These liberties can be tolerated (cf.Immortale Dei, A.S.S., 18, 1885, p. 174; Libertas praestantissimum, A.S.S., 20, 1887, pp. 609-610). But they are still said to be only “tolerated.” The reason was evident. For in that time, in Europe, the regime which proclaimed modern liberties, including religious liberty, consciously drew its inspiration still from a secularist ideology. Therefore the danger existed, which Leo XIII sensed, that civil and political institutions of republics of this sort, because they were informed by a secularist intention, would be led to such abuses, which could not but harm the dignity of the human person and his genuine liberty. For what was to the heart of pope Leo XIII, according to the rule of continuity, is always to the heart of the Church, without a doubt the protection of the human person.16
Moreover: “The doctrine of Pius XII on the limitation of the State must be greatly remembered, in regard to repressing errors in society: 'May it be that in certain circumstances He (God) does not give to men any mandate, impose any duty, nor even give any right to impede and to repress that which is erroneous and false? A look to reality gives an affirmative answer. Then, respecting the example of divine providence, he continues: Then the claim: Religious and moral error ought to be always impeded, as much as possible, because its tolerance is, in itself, immoral- cannot be evaluated unconditionally and absolutely. On the other hand, God has not even given human authority such an absolute and universal precept, neither in the realm of faith nor in that of morality. I do not know such a precept, nor the common belief of men, nor the Christian conscience, no the fount of revelation, nor the practice of the Church (Ce riesce, A.A.S., 35, 1953, pp. 798-799).' This declaration (progressive rule) is of the highest importance for our business, especially if they are held before eyes which once were formerly borne to the mission of the state.”17
Another example, in the same vein, is the words of Pius XII continuing what was said in the prior text:
Cf. Pius XII, Alloc. to auditing prelates and other official administrators of the Sacred Tribunal of the Roman Rota, Oct. 6th, 1946: A.A.S., 38 (1946), p. 393: “The ever more frequent contact and promiscuity of different religious confessions within the confines of the same people has led civil courts to follow the principle of tolerance and of liberty of conscience.' Indeed, in such a circumstance, there is a political, civil and social tolerance toward the followers of another confession, that is even a duty for Catholics.”
Moreover, cf. Pius XII, Alloc. Ci riesce, Dec. 6th, 1953: A.A.S., 35 (1953), p. 797: “Religious and moral interests will require for the whole expanse of the Community (of people) a well defined rule, which will apply to the whole territory of each sovereign member State of such a community of nations. According to probability and the circumstances it is foreseeable that this such a rule of positive law will be enunciated as follows: Within its own territory and for its own citizens every state will regulate religious and moral matters with its own law; nevertheless in the whole territory of the Community of member States, it will be permitted to citizens of each state the practice of their own belief, and ethical and religious practices, in as much as these do not go against the penal law of the State in which they are residing.”According to the Roman Pontiff, Catholic citizens and rulers of Catholic States can consent [to the international community] from conscience of the same law.18
The Relatio on this text (of the prior text) explained another reason why they do not speak of a religious tolerance- a criterion which was kept even to the end – and preferred to speak of religious liberty.The reason is, precisely, that it claims to give an answer to a question that has risen recently, which was not raised in previous periods:
There are those that doubt this formula of “religious liberty” and reckon we cannot proceed in this matter except about “religious tolerance.”
Still, is it not to be observed that religious liberty is the term which obtains modern and well determined signification in today's vocabulary? In this pastoral Council the Church intends to say what she judges about this matter which ecclesial groups, governments, institutions, journalists, experts of law in our time designate by this word. If we direct our speech to modern society, we ought to use their manner of speaking.
Therefore we treat of religious liberty as a formal juridical notion, which enunciates a right which is founded on the nature of the human person, which must be observed by all, and in some way acknowledged in the fundamental law (Constitution of States, with juridical guarantees) so that there may be a common civil right. Its recognition, protection and promotion ought to be ensured by society in general and specifically by governments.19
Finally, the doctrine of DH does not require the disapproval of the conduct in the past by some Christian princes, granted that the historical evaluation is in itself complex and, in the most part,debatable, although the possibility that few concrete actions have conformed to the pirit of the Gospel cannot be denied a priori.20
1 Leo XIII, Encyclical Immortale Dei, 1-XI-1885: *** 18 (1885) p. 172
2 John XXIII, Encyclical Pacem in terris, 11-IV-1963: AAS 55 (1963) p. 299; cf. Also, John Paul II, Message à l'ONU, 2-XII-1978:Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II 1 (1978) p. 259.
3 Council of Trent, Decretum de peccato originali, can. 1: DS 1511.
4 cf. Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione, can. 5: DS 1555.
5 cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ I q. 3 a. 4 and III q. 8 a. 3
6 Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II,Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, vol. IV, pars VI, p. 725.
7 Pius XII, Allocution Ci riesce, 6-XII-1953: AAS 45 (1953) p. 799
8 Acta Synodalia … cit., vol. IV, pars I, pp. 189-190
9 Cf. J. Hamer, Histoire du text de la Déclaration, in AA.VV., “Vatican II. LA liberte religieuse,” cit., p. 104.
10 Acta Synodalis, cit., vol. IV pars I, p. 190
11 Acta Synodalis … , cit. Vol IV, pars VI, p. 744.
12 Acta Synodalia..., cit., vol. IV, pars VI, p. 769.
13 Acta Synodalia..., cit., vol. IV, pars V, p. 154.
14 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, S. Th. I-II q. 96, a. 2; a. 3
15 Pius XII, Alloc. Ci riesce, Dec. 6, 1953: AAS 45 (1953) p. 799
16 Acta Synodalia..., cit., vol. II, pars V, p. 492.
17 Acta Synodalia..., cit., vol. II, pars V, p. 494.
18 Acta Synodalia..., cit., vol. III, pars II, p. 327.
19 Acta Synodalia..., cit., vol III, pars II, pp. 349-350.
20 cf. Paul VI, Discorso, 8-18-1971: “Insegnamenti di Paolo VI” 9 (1971) p. 705.
Comments
Post a Comment