I was reading some things you wrote on the Net and wanted to ask you about the Vatican II document where it speaks of "religious freedom". Here is a chopped up citation, for convenience, though I know you can easily refer to the original when you want to:

 

It clearly intends to say that this "right" is born in man and is therefore a natural right. This is why it says it is to "become" a civil right by being recognized by human law. Saying the right "is to be" recognized, clearly indicates, also, that it is FIRSTLY a natural right of man before being "recognized" in law.

 

Do you agree with this?

 

We should first define our terms. "Religious Liberty" is defined by Dignitatis Humanae as follows:

 

Later in Chapter 7, these due limits are defined:

 

Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with THE OBJECTIVE MORAL ORDER. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality."

 

Please note that DH clearly teaches that the limits of human religious liberty include THE OBJECTIVE MORAL ORDER. This means that DH was not permitting indifferentism or latitudinarianism. It was allowing freedom in religious matters which served the common good in an objective sense. DH went on to say:

 

Note that DH defined the term PUBLIC ORDER to include THE OBJECTIVE MORAL ORDER, not merely "the peaceful settlements of conflicts." Many reactionary Catholic commentators fail to note this and try to define the term 'public order' in accordance with some terminology used elsewhere in Canon Law cases. This is not appropriate. DH defines its intended use of the term quite clearly and no other meaning should be imputed to it in this context.

 

Furthermore, DH makes it clear that it was giving instruction about religious liberty as a civil right, not as a natural right. Note:

 

This is an important distinction. The natural man has the obligation to worship God. God himself sets the terms which fulfill that obligation. Thus all men are obliged to practice the one true religion (i.e., Roman Catholicism). But, the obligation to practice the true religion logically assumes the right to be religious in the broader sense. According to St. Thomas, Man moves from a natural state of ignorance to an acquired state of knowledge through sensate bodily experience. Hence men naturally progress through several stages of religious ignorance on their way to a saving faith in God and his Christ. Every person finds his or her own way to God at the behest of divine grace. Some come to faith sooner than others. Some do not believe until they are on their deathbed. Some never get there at all.

 

In simpler terms, if I have the obligation to be at a particular place, I must have the freedom to travel there albeit by a circuitous route. There may be some limitations placed on the way I travel, but too much interference in my free movement is not good, especially by secular authorities whose competence in such matters is questionable.

 

Now, CIVIL rights are not the same as NATURAL rights. Civil rights are granted us in order to permit us to achieve the goals mandated by our Natural rights, but (because of the nature of human societies) the civil right will almost invariably be more liberally interpreted that the natural right. For example, men have the civil right to free speech because of a natural obligation to speak the truth. In order to protect the natural right to speak the truth, in civil societies a certain latitude is permitted in speech which goes beyond what the natural right morally permits.

 

Therefore, the CIVIL right to religious liberty is broader in permissiveness than the NATURAL right even though it is based upon it. The Natural right to religious liberty extends only so far as to permit the individual to make the NECESSARY steps that lead to the practice of the true religion. The CIVIL rights may allow more latitude WITHIN DUE LIMITS based upon THE OBJECTIVE MORAL ORDER and upon the political needs for conflict resolution which in itself represents a true social good.

 

Yes, it does help. The part mentioning "within due limits" changes the understanding significantly from being an absolute to being some indeterminate degree less than absolute. I never focused on that qualification before, probably because I never perused the document. I prefer the safer course of dealing with the particulars as they come up (as you have just presented some); I just happen to find the Vatican II documents doctrinally twisted. Some more than others.

 

I have carefully read what you have written, and you have helped me deal with the document in a more accurate manner. However, viewing it now as less than absolute (rather than absolute) does not eradicate the inherent problems that exist.

 

The Church has always mentioned in its writings (and practiced it accordingly) that the Christian has the right to religious freedom. (And when the Church mentioned "Christian" the term always meant "Catholic"). Now the men of the 60's deliberately changed it to – "the human person" has the right to religious freedom. But this is not true because every human person is not born and/or raised a Catholic. And the definition of the term "religion" has always been "Catholicism" because all others are false and do not deserve the name "religion". Why the deliberate and abrupt change in terminology? The average person who reads DH will certainly come away believing that any non-Catholic often has the "right" to practice their false religion. But the "objective moral order", and the natural law, does not allow for anything other than Catholic teaching as a "right".

 

DH also confounds the proper distinction between "right" and "freedom" in its treatment of the subject. The traditional teaching and practice has always been that only truth has "rights". Therefore, one is "free" to believe error, or to sin, but nevertheless one does NOT have a "right" to do so.

 

DH confuses the true meaning of "religious" by its use of that term with "human person". The phrase "religious freedom" or "religious liberty" makes sense ONLY if the religion is Catholic…because Catholicism is simply the only true religion…and if a religion be false it is not a "religion" strictly speaking at all.

 

DH also corrupts the concept of "tolerance" as a result. Tolerance only exists because a lesser of two or more evils needs to be chosen. But it is against Catholic teaching to suggest that choosing the lesser evil implies that the persons tolerated by the choice, have some type of "rights" to be tolerated. Those who are tolerated still lack any rights even when given the freedom to do that which is a lesser evil.

 

Notice what the encyclical "Mortalium Animos" (1928) had stated about an essential aspect of our Divine Church:

 

Notice that there is nothing like it in the history of the Church until Vatican II. Not only the average man, but even top ecclesiastics admit that these documents are difficult to reconcile with traditional teaching. And some will admit that it is perhaps because there are points of doctrine that are new. These difficulties are not characteristic of teaching coming from the authority of Christ, aside from the fact that they are heretical. Those ignorant of past teaching will not even see a difficulty…they simply read it and go away with an heretical understanding, thinking it is true and easy to understand. This is heretical pure and simple. The Mystical Body of Christ cannot, and has not, produced such a bad fruit.

 

And the definition of the term "religion" has always been "Catholicism" because all others are false and do not deserve the name "religion". Why the deliberate and abrupt change in terminology?

 

What is Catholicism? A liberal parish in Boston? A conservative parish in Toledo, Ohio? An SSPX chapel? The St. Benedict Center? The Fraternity of St. Peter? An Eastern Catholic parish in Lebanon? A Carthusian monastery? A Jesuit retreat house? A Dominican seminary?

 

Your problem is that you are thinking in monolithic and triumphalist terms. In fact Catholicism is not simply definable as a single clear way distinguished from all others. There are common elements, but the Church is CATHOLIC (i.e., diverse in its unity). As such, everyone who has been validly baptized is connected to the Catholic Church, though not all the validly baptized are in formal communion with it.

 

We as human beings are all pilgrims on the way. The validly baptized are especially so. Every non-Catholic is a POTENTIAL Catholic. Some are more closely linked to the Church than others. The religious impulse can only find its true end in the Church Jesus founded. But if we do not allow people the freedom to find their way into the Church, they may not arrive there. The specific obligation to practice the true religion logically requires the more general right to be religious.

 

The religious impulse is not specifically Catholic but more general. I was attracted to many women before getting married but now I am nuptually bonded to the RIGHT one. Logically, I had to date many people before finding the right one. It is unreasonable to assume that I would pick the right one on the first date.

 

The issue in DH was CIVIL rights, not the more theoretical "natural" rights. As such, the term religion had to have a more broad definition. But even in Catholic terms, religiosity precedes faith.

 

The traditional teaching and practice has always been that only truth has "rights".

 

No. The truth has no "rights." PEOPLE have rights. Erroneous people have the right to be wrong on their way to discerning the truth. They have the right to learn from their mistakes.

 

DH also corrupts the concept of "tolerance" as a result.

 

The word "tolerance" does not occur anywhere in the document. The point of DH is that SECULAR governments should permit their people the right to be religious. It does not address in any way that idea of Catholics "tolerating" practitioners of false religions.

 

Notice that there is nothing like it in the history of the Church until Vatican II. Not only the average man, but even top ecclesiastics admit that these documents are difficult to reconcile with traditional teaching.

 

I disagree. With a little bit of effort, a Catholic will have no problem reconciling VCII with the authentic Catholic tradition. Now a narrow minded partisan of a particular school of thought may not like what VCII has to say on some matters, but one should not confuse theological speculation with the Magisterium. Since VCII has received the support of ALL of the Popes since the Council, the opinions of lesser personages is immaterial.

 

These difficulties are not characteristic of teaching coming from the authority of Christ, aside from the fact that they are heretical.

 

So now you are claiming that JPII is a heretic because he supports VCII? I am afraid that you need to learn a little more about Catholic theology. The "received opinion" of the preconciliar manual theologians has no authority to bind the Magisterium. It is actually the other way around. What VCII did was to say that the narrow views which you espouse were NOT defined Catholic teaching and that other views could be entertained.

 

Maybe you need to take the hint and give religious submission of mind and will to the Magisterium? If you don't, then you place yourself outside the Church.

 

If you have a narrow view of "Catholicism" which only embraces the manual theologies and the Counter-Reformation polemics while ignoring the wider panorama of Catholic thought, liturgy, and life, then yes you are a triumphalist. To interpret the papal statements you listed as if there was only one way to be Catholic is a perversion of our Traditions. VCII reminded us that there is more to being Catholic than the Latin Mass. I am not sure you understand that.

 

And, finally, based upon your ending statement – Do you think it is a requirement to be "Catholic" to give religious submission of mind and will to the Roman Catholic Magisterium?

 

Read Lumen Gentium 25 for the DEFINITIVE teaching of the Magisterium on this matter.

 

In answer to your specific question, I submit to the reigning Pope and his authority. I make no pretense to being qualified to disagree with his judgment in matters of faith and morals. Neither should any true Catholic. Hence I do not submit to YOUR interpretations of Mortalium Animos. I submit to JPII as the supreme teacher of the Church. I suggest you do the same.

 

Can the Magisterium ever contradict itself from one age to the next?

 

Yes. In prudential or practical matters. What may seem like a bad idea in 1930 may become de rigeur in 1990. Only matters of faith or morals cannot be contradicted. I think this is where Intergrists go wrong. They confuse practical strategies with eternal verities.

 

So many things come up in this discussion that it becomes difficult to know what to address. It would seem necessary to focus on basics such as the immutability of truth and work up from there....if you had the time, which I tend to think you don't. Necessary I say because, for instance, notice how I tried to say, in concept, that to be in the Church you had to be a Roman Catholic. You responded by beginning a recent message with:

 

then you end the same message by telling me

 

Look at the contradiction: religious submission of mind and will to the Magisterium is indeed a single clear way of distinguishing the true Church. It has always been understood that way. A visible Church. The Protestants believed in the heresy of an invisible Church.

 

Yes, I believe the second statement you made about the Magisterium. But it begs the question – whether or not the man who is the apparent head of that Magisterium is legitimate or not. If not legitimate, then he would not represent Christ's Magisterium and we would not be obliged to obey him; it would be a false obedience and therefore a sinful and dangerous one. Catholic moral theology even says that "doubtful" authorities are the same as no authority as far as our obligations go.

 

Seeing how you seem eager to address the contemporary "traditionalist" controversies (judging from certain terms you use), let us speak of the papacy. It seems that you may not know that the Church teaches that a Pope can become a heretic, and thus cease to be Pope. Do you believe that such can happen?

 

One of the problems dealing with Integrists is that they have a very narrow understanding of Catholicism to the point that they feel theirs is the only right way to understand and practice it. Furthermore, they are usually stagnating in a historicist inspired western Latin rite Counter-Deformation rut which sees the pre-VCII Latin Rite practices as the inevitable pattern for all true Catholicism. I will be kind and call such a vision amateurish.

 

A person who is well educated in their faith knows that Catholicism is much broader than that and that VCII was completely legitimate in the latitude it recognized for both doxis and praxis within the Church.

 

Furthermore, Integrists fail to make the distinction between doxis and praxis leading them to equivocate on the competence and binding authority of the Magisterium. When the Pope gives a non-doctrinal opinion on ecumenism (e.g., Mortalium Animos) the Integrist acts like it is carved on stone at Mount Sinai. Meanwhile while an Ecumenical Council of the Church with the support of all subsequent Popes suggests a different strategy, this is dismissed as an ephemeral innovation. The mark of the true Catholic is his ability to submit to the LIVING Magisterium, not to set himself up as judge on what is and is not de fide.

 

Necessary I say because, for instance, notice how I tried to say, in concept, that to be in the Church you had to be a Roman Catholic.

 

No you didn't. A Roman Catholic submits to Dignitatis Humanae and to all the teachings of VCII along with the teachings and policies of the reigning Pope. You want to be an Integrist reserving to yourself the right to decided whom and what you will obey. Big difference.

 

This myopic Integrist vision of yours fails to see that within Catholic unity there is diversity. Catholics can be lay people, religious, clergy, cloistered, Western Rite or of any of the Eastern Rites. There are some interesting differences between these different ways of being Catholic. No one of them is the "real" way.

 

Common to all of them is submission to the Magisterium which means primarily submission to the REIGNING POPE. Are you in full submission to JPII in all ecclesial matters or not?

 

But it begs the question – whether or not the man who is the apparent head of that Magisterium is legitimate or not.

 

So now you show your true colors. You are not a Catholic. There is no sense in trying to discuss the internal matters of the faith with one who has placed himself outside the Church.

 

I am afraid that your grasp of the issues is amateurish. You admitted in earlier correspondence that you had not actually read Dignitatis Humanae, yet you sat in judgment on it as if you were competent to question the Magisterium. When confronted with someone who HAD studied the document and knew it intimately, you had to back peddle and then pull the old Integrist ploy of pitting Mortalium Animos against VCII. Now you are going to claim that JPII is not the valid pope. Pitiful.

 

I fear that you need to learn quite a bit more about the Catholic faith before you are capable of having an intelligent discussion with a knowledgeable Catholic.

 

Some people should talk and some people should listen. You need to keep listening, Lawrence. You have a lot to learn.