RS2:In regards to the pope, you consistently fail to distinguish when he is teaching truth from when he makes mistakes. In regards to DH, you consistently fail to make the proper distinctions between the civil right to religious freedom and the morality of it.

 

JP2: As to the latter, religious freedom is not merely a civil right, but a moral one, having its foundation in the intrinsic dignity of man which is given to him by His Creator. Mind you, I am not saying that religious error is a moral right, only his freedom to choose is. There's another distinction for you :)

 

RS3: Freedom to choose is certainly a God-given right, but freedom to choose a false religion is not a moral right, unless, of course, you can tell us where Vatican II said religious freedom is a moral right. The only thing I find in Dignitatis Humanae is that "This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a CIVIL RIGHT" (The General Principle of Religious Freedom, Chapter 1, #2)

 

JP3: Robert, I have already cited the texts time and time again. I'll cite it again for you:

 

There is NO SUCH THING as a civil right without an underlying moral right - otherwise you would be saying that the Church condones civil laws without the underlying moral foundation to them. If you read the paragraph carefully, you will see that freedom is based on the dignity of the human person AS KNOWN THROUGH THE REVEALED WORD OF GOD. That makes it a moral right having its foundation in Sacred Scripture. Having established the moral right to religious freedom, the Council goes on to insist that this moral right be recognized as a civil right by the State. One follows the other.

 

Here is my challenge to you, Robert. I am not asking you to make the logical case for a separation of a civil right from a moral right. I am not asking you to make the theological case for a separation of a civil right from a moral right. I am not even asking you to reconcile this separation with past Catholic teaching. Although these things are very important to do (and perhaps you can do it in the body of this dialogue), for now, I propose these two simple challenges to you:

 

#1 - Give us the biblical support for separating a civil right from a moral right.

 

#2 - Name one other prominent Traditionalist (Ferrara, Woods, Davies, etc.) who agrees with your separation between a civil right and a moral right.

 

Hint: You won't find one. "There is not the least suggestion in the teaching of any pre-Vatican II pope that there could be a natural right on the part of non-Catholics not to be prevented from propagating their errors in public." (Michael Davies, Development or Discontinuity, Latin Mass Magazine, Spring, 2002, p. 51).

 

RS4: I couldn't help but notice that your so-called proofs are only the ideas of John Pacheco, since you cite no proofs from Vatican II. If you don't see the difference, then surely you can show us where Vatican II uses your reasoning. Show us where Vatican II, as you claim, says "there is no such thing as a civil right without an underlying moral right." Show us where Vatican II says that the "dignity of the human person" equates with religious freedom being a moral right, not just a civil right. Show us where Vatican II says that simply because a truth is "known through the revealed word of God" that this equates with a moral right to religious freedom. If you can't show us where Vatican II says that a civil right necessitates a moral right, or equates to a moral right, or must have an underlying moral right, then you don't have a leg to stand on, John.

 

JP4: Just so that everyone knows, Robert has given a fairly long (and in my opinion, largely irrelevant) response to my challenge. Interested parties can go here to read all about it. I am only going to deal with the more salient points of his response to my challenges. In his rebuttal above, Robert asks me to:

 

Now then, everyone please pay close attention because, in one little sentence, our whole dialogue thus far on Religious Liberty which is now approaching 100 pages (and counting!) is about to come to a rather dramatic climax. Here is the proof that Robert has to deal with:

 

OK, everyone. We can all participate in this exercise. Take the second sentence above. Here it is again:

 

Now here is what you are going to do. Insert the word "civil" between "This" and "right". Now do the same with "moral". Which meaning makes more sense?

 

Clearly the right being spoken of here is a moral right.

 

Firstly, the demonstrative pronoun "this" is referring to the right mentioned in the previous sentence which is described as being based on "the very dignity of man". Clearly, this is referring to a moral right.

 

RS5: The only thing that has reached a "dramatic climax" is the presumptuousness of John Pacheco. But, as I did when he claimed victory a few posts ago, I will excuse his bravado once again. Let's get back to the debate.

 

If Vatican II wanted to say "moral right" they would have done so. After all, Vatican II used the word "moral" when it sought to reinforce the idea that every man has the "moral duty" to seek the Catholic Church. As I wrote in my last post, the only time Dignitatis Humanae uses the word "moral" in the sense of duty or right, is in paragraph #1, which states that all men have the "moral duty" to seek the one true religion in the Catholic Church. It states:

 

JP5: So, Robert, if it is true, as you say above, that "Vatican II used the word "moral" when it sought to reinforce the idea that every man has the "moral duty" to seek the Catholic Church", why does DH go on to associate this "duty" with the "right" to seek the truth in religious matters:

 

If the duty is moral, then so is the associated right.

 

RS6: John, stop making conclusions that DH doesn't make. I know you think your conclusions sound good to you, but unless you have a statement from DH saying what you conclude, you don't have a leg to stand on. The point in fact remains that DH never says men have the moral right to religious freedom. Here is what it says regarding the "moral" dimension. DH 2 says: "all men...beings endowed with reason and free will...are both impelled by their nature and bound by a MORAL obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth." This says the same thing as DH 3's statement you quoted, except that it adds the words "moral obligation." Notice that the only time DH uses the word "moral" in reference to the human person is in regards to his "obligation," not his "rights." Obviously, since a "right" is something that is entitled to a person without his having to do any requirements to receive it, whereas an "obligation" is NOT an entitlement but is a requirement for the person to do certain things, we see that DH is very careful not to give the impression that a person has the moral right to choose any religion he desires, but the moral obligation to seek the truth. And according to DH1, that "truth" was already defined as "the traditional Catholic teaching...towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ."

 

JP6: The point is there is no such thing as a "right" to ANYTHING unless there is a moral foundation to it. How can you have a "right" to anything without invoking some kind of moral authority for it? I can't see how that is even possible. It's as simple as that. So the fact that the document does not actually say "moral right to religious freedom" is superfluous to this discussion because firstly, every "right", properly speaking, is necessarily moral and, secondly, because DH insists that in order for the MORAL DUTY to be fulfilled there must be a CONSEQUENTIAL moral right to fulfill it!

 

If the two were not on the same moral plane, Robert, how could one follow the other? They couldn't because they wouldn't be congruous. Yet DH is plainly putting them on the same level.

 

RS5:The fact that Dignitatis Humanae NEVER uses the word "moral" in front of "right" in the whole 15 sections of its rather lengthy document ought to tell us something. It tells us that DH studiously sought to avoid giving the impression that worshiping in a religion other than the Catholic Church is a moral right of mankind. No matter how many times DH says religious freedom is a "civil right" (three times), but never says it is a "moral right," nevertheless, John Pacheco wants to play word games, or perhaps a shell game, in order to make you think that what you are seeing is not what you are seeing.

 

JP5:All Robert has to do in this dialogue is show us how ANY right can be sustained WITHOUT an appeal to the moral sphere in Catholic teaching. The fact is that he cannot do it. The purpose of the above exercise was not to play "shell games" with anyone. It was to show Robert that the meaning of "This right" could not refer to a "civil right" since the sentence would not make any sense. In my opinion, the surrounding context (Sacred Scripture, Dignity of Man) clearly points to a "moral" understanding of this right.

 

RS6: We aren't interested in John Pacheco's "opinion." We are interested only in what DH says. Obviously, since John can't find where DH says religious freedom is a "moral right," he tries to turn the tables to make me prove that there can be a civil right without a moral right. But DH doesn't get into the contest John is demanding. There will be more discussion on this below.

 

JP6: OK. As long as you address it. Because so far, you have not explained how you can separate a moral and civil right, normatively speaking.

 

JP5: Furthermore, Robert does not seem to grasp that ALL RIGHTS ULTIMATELY COME FROM GOD. There is no such thing as a "right" to anything unless God has revealed it. Any "right" which does not have God as its support is a heretical and human construct. In fact, it is precisely this ideology that has decimated western culture. It has been the Catholic politician's line for the last 40 years: "we can't force our morality on the State". So the bottom line is that, whatever kind of "right" you insert between "This" and "right" in DH 2, the fact is that this right ULTIMATELY must come from God. The most natural reading of the text, however, is to understand the "right" being spoken of as a moral one. There is no reason for introducing other kinds of "rights" unsupported by the text of DH.

 

RS6: Granted. All rights, either directly or indirectly, come from God. Even the devil has rights. God have him the right to tempt man and cause turmoil on the earth (Job 1:1-6). In fact, God even uses the devil for His own bidding (cf., 2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chr 21:1). But does that mean that the devil has the "moral right" to tempt man and cause turmoil on the earth? Certainly not. The devil has the freedom to do so, but he doesn't have the moral right to do so.

 

JP6: The devil does not have the right to spread his error and neither do humans. That is not the issue here. The issue here is, in the context of ignorance and his search for truth, does man have a right, based on the dignity of his person and not on the error he may profess, to search for that truth? The Devil knows the truth. Many pagans do not.

 

RS5: True to form, we also see John using as proof the very things I asked him to prove in my last post, but which he never proved, and which in this post John claims are "irrelevant." You will notice above that John resorts to "which is described as being based on 'the very dignity of man.' Clearly, this is referring to a moral right," but he never proved, in the first place, that the reference to the "very dignity of man" equates with a moral right. Did Vatican II, in any of its documents, state that "dignity" equated with a moral right? Does any Church document? Equating "dignity" with a "moral right" is merely the wish of John Pacheco. We would expect that if any document of Vatican II would want to make a connection between "dignity" and "moral right" it would be Dignitatis Humanae, which, by its very title, means "The Dignity of Human Life." But you can search Dignitatis Humane and you will never find them equating "dignity" and "moral right."

 

Again, as I said in my last post, if this were not the case, then Dignitatis Humanae would have no right to say "Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." For if it is a "moral right" to worship in another religion other than Catholicism, then the Catholic Church has no business telling pagans that they have the "moral duty" to seek the Catholic Church. One cannot have the "moral duty" to seek the Catholic Church, but the "moral right" to seek another religion.

 

JP5: Please pay close attention to the emphasized selection from DH:

 

As DH makes plainly obvious, the free exercise of religion in society is under "the very order established by God for men." That makes it a moral right because it has been established by God.

 

RS6: John is still getting confused between the moral right to exercise one's free will as opposed to the moral right to worship a false god. Unfortunately, the whole discussion turns on this distinction. The only thing DH is granting is that men should have the freedom to make their own decisions, uncoerced by any outside force. It is not saying that the decisions that men make are morally correct. The only morally correct decision, as DH 1 specifies, is to accept the one true church, the Catholic Church. Every other choice is morally incorrect, although men have the God-given right to make any choice they desire, since God has given men a free will. It would be immoral for God to prohibit man from making free choices.

 

JP6: If, as Robert suggests above, "one has the MORAL RIGHT to exercise one's free will", then why does this simple maxim, which HE has just conceded, not apply to religious belief? Man has the moral right to exercise his free will, Robert says, but, should he choose to exercise this "MORAL RIGHT" (his words, mark them) in the religious sphere, it ceases to be come a right! This does not make any sense. Robert is trying to divorce the exercise of free will from the question of religious freedom. How the heck can you do that? If, as Robert says, "one has the moral right to exercise free will", then obviously one has the right to exercise one's religion since that is part of "free will"! DH simply affirmed man's moral right to exercise his free will in religious matters, provided that, of course, the public order was maintained. We can see clearly that, if this point is well understood, Assisi is a demonstration of the Church's belief in this teaching.

 

JP4: Secondly, this right is known "through the revealed word of God". Again, another clear and unmistakable reference to the moral sphere of "rights".

 

RS5: Again, John makes assertions without any proof. The equating of "moral rights" with "the revealed word of God" was precisely the assertion I demanded that John prove in my last post. But rather than prove it, John simply resorts to making the same assertion, and expects everyone to accept it just because he asserts it. If he insists on this ploy, perhaps he can intersperse it with a few proofs as to where Scripture says that men have a "moral right" to worship in another religion besides Christianity. Scripture says the men have been made in the image of God and deserve our respect and retain their dignity (James 3:9), but it never says men have the moral right to pray or worship in any other religion than Christianity (Acts 17:25-31).

 

JP5: They do not have a right to worship in another religion ONCE their conscience convicts them of the truth of Christianity, but BEFORE this time they MUST seek and worship God in the ways that they believe he has revealed Himself. This is a simple yet necessary distinction Robert needs to make. God demands that all men seek after Him, yet not all men know the complete truth of the Gospel. As such, on a natural level, He demands that they worship Him as best they can. Cornelius is an example of this.

 

RS6: According to John's logic, if a pagan believes that God is the devil, then it is perfectly acceptable for the pagan to worship the devil, thinking that he is worshiping God. In fact, John must allow devil worship, since the pagan would claim that the devil he worships is indeed his god and that he has the moral freedom to worship him. You can begin to see that, if one takes John's logic, there is no line of demarcation between God and the devil.

 

JP6: Nonsense. This is a silly characterization of my position. DH assumes that the pagan is sincere and has good will in seeking the truth. As such, he has the moral right to explore the truth unencumbered by civil or ecclesiastical coercion. Devil worship, on the other hand, is, by its very definition, AGAINST seeking after the truth and consciously opposed to it. As I have tried to make explicit in this dialogue, the moral freedom associated with religious liberty is inherently tied to the search for the truth. There is a duty and there is a right to both.

 

RS6:Cornelius is NOT an example of what John is proposing. Acts 10:1-4 clearly indicates (and John is avoiding this fact) that Cornelius was praying and worshiping GOD, not the devil nor any pagan god. It is precisely because he is praying to God that God answers him. Acts 10:1-2 says: "Cornelius...a devout man, and one who feared God...and prayed to God continually." Even the angel acknowledges he was praying to God in verses 4 and 31: "your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God." Verse 22 calls him "Cornelius...a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken by the entire nation of the Jews." Apparently, Cornelius often conversed with the Jews, and thus Cornelius was probably very familiar with the God of the Old Testament.

 

JP6: If Cornelius was a "devout man who feared God", as Robert admits, and he believed outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, what business does Robert have for denying a Muslim the same possibility? Scripture gives us the PRINCIPLE of a "devout" pagan who "can fear God". If Robert disputes Cornelius being a pagan, then he must show us the rationale for doing so. He must give us a precise definition of a pagan in NT biblical times.

 

RS6:In fact, in John's use of the example of Cornelius to support his case, he only indicts John Paul II that much more. If, as John is purporting, Cornelius was praying to God through another god, the fact remains that when Peter met Cornelius he told him about the necessity to confess his sins and submit to baptism in the Catholic Church. Has John Paul II done this with any of the pagans of Assisi who prayed to pagan gods? No, for 16 years he has not told one pagan his need to confess his sins and receive baptism in the Catholic Church. Why might this be? Because according to Redemptor Hominis, John Paul II believes that the pagan is already "redeemed" by the Incarnation of Christ.

 

JP6: Well, yes, the pagan is redeemed, Robert. All of humanity is. Isn't that basic Catholic teaching? I think it is. You still sound like a Calvinist, Robert.

 

And as for your claim that "John is purporting, Cornelius was praying to God through another god", where in heaven's name have I said that? Scripture reveals that Cornelius was praying to the ONE TRUE GOD even though he was doing so OUTSIDE of the Judeo-Christian tradition. In His gracious mercy, God heard his prayers because he was an upright and noble man in search of truth. Why is this so difficult for you to concede, Robert? Could you still be holding on to some subconscious Calvinist baggage?

 

RS6:The main ingredient John is missing is that if a pagan is truly searching for God, God will come to him. Jesus says, "Seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened to you, ask and you shall receive." Likewise in Acts 17, St. Paul tells the Athenians to put away their idols and seek the true God. Unfortunately, John Paul II has stymied the pagans from receiving the true God, since he allows the pagans to believe that they can still pray to their false gods and in that way fulfill the requirements of seeking the true God. Again, not once in 16 years between Assisi 1 and 2 has John Paul II told the pagans what St. Paul told them in Acts 17:30-31 (to forsake their idols and turn to the true God in Jesus Christ, for judgment day is coming).

 

JP6: Sure he has, Robert. He did it at Assisi. You just won't accept his CLEAR witness unless he damns them to hell if they don't get baptized that second. Even with potential converts to the Catholic faith, they have to wait months until they finish some catechetical instruction. You also treat everyone like they are in the same boat, theologically. That's not very smart, in my opinion.

 

JP5: Moreover, if, as DH says, everyone has a moral DUTY to seek after truth, then they have a corresponding moral RIGHT to do so as well - unencumbered by civil or ecclesiastical authority. Someone cannot fulfill their duty to God without having the right to do so. The two go together. The manner in which man exercises his duty to seek after the truth may be objectively wrong, granted, but that is a separate question. Seeking after the truth presupposes that you don't have it!

 

The "demands of the divine law" are related to the moral sphere.

 

RS6: This is a stark admission by John. Above he admits: "The manner in which man exercises his duty to seek after the truth may be objectively wrong, granted, but that is a separate question." John says the manner may be "objectively wrong." And I'm sure he would agree that the "manner" may also be morally wrong (although I'm puzzled why John didn't come right out and say that the manner may be morally wrong). By making the above admission, this proves that John sees the distinction between the moral right to religious freedom and the morality of the choice that is made. Let me remind the reader that it is precisely the distinction between the moral right to choose and the morality of the choice that this whole discussion about John Paul II and Assisi turns. According to DH it is certainly the right of the pagan to worship his false god (since he has a free will given to him by God), but DH does not say that the choice the pagan makes to worship a false god is the morally correct choice. When it comes to the "morality" of the situation, DH 1 and DH 3 are very clear that the pagan has the "moral duty" and "moral obligation" to worship in the one true church, the Catholic Church. Thus, if the pagan does not make the right moral choice (i.e., he chooses to worship a false god), then John Paul II should not be encouraging this decision by inviting pagans to Assisi to pray to their false gods. If the pagan, by his own free will, decides to come to Assisi uninvited, or even stays in his own land to pray to his false god, there is little John Paul II, or John Pacheco or I, can do about it (except, perhaps, ask them to leave our holy ground), but that is far different than actually INVITING the pagan to come to Assisi to pray to his false god under the guise that by doing so he is praying to the true God, and that all of this is a fulfillment of the mandate of Vatican II in Dignitatis Humanae.

 

JP6: Above, Robert makes the following comment:

 

OK. Now we are getting somewhere with this. Notice how Robert says that the pagan has a "right to worship". He has this "right" because, according to Robert, he has a free will. But there is something else here. Notice Robert does not say it is the "moral right" of the pagan to do so, just his "right". Here we go again on balking at stating the obvious. Even if he does not say "moral right", Robert still has big problems because #1 he uses free will (a moral attribute) as a justification for this "right" and #2 he still has not made the practical application between a moral and a civil right. In fact, the Holy Father reiterated this principle in the CDF's recent release against homosexual marriage:

 

Furthermore, Robert still has not understood the distinction I have already made; namely, that the kind of moral religious freedom DH is speaking about is predicated on the subject (man) and not on the object (truth). Understood in the context of the object, there can be no religious freedom, morally speaking. The truth restricts a moral choice. However, when the truth is unknown, man has a duty to seek this truth. But the nature of truth is such that it cannot be imposed without respecting man's inherent nature to be religious and to worship according to his free will and conscience. Given this deficient condition, the Church must seek to respect man's general religious nature and his exercise of it, while at the same time witnessing to the truth of the Gospel. What Robert is really attacking is man's inherent religious impulse placed there by the Creator, which, although seriously misdirected at times, is an attribute of his inherent dignity. As the Catechism clearly reveals: "Man is by nature and vocation a religious being. Coming from God, going toward God, man lives a fully human life only if he freely lives by his bond with God." (CCC,44) The Christian gospel cannot be preached and accepted unless man already possesses the "raw material" necessary for its growth. The question becomes what should the Church's disposition be toward non-Christians who have a religious impulse which they express through a false religion? Is it to condemn the impulse to pray in the face of their own ignorance? I say no - and neither, apparently, does the Pope. Overcoming this ignorance, it should also be added, cannot realistically be accomplished in one or two days because it is not merely a lack of knowledge but also includes a deficient moral disposition. In order to overcome this situation, the Church must speak the gospel first in a shrewd way so that the Gospel's inherent truth may be able to grow within their own hearts, and make them better disposed and open to hearing some of the harder truths of Christianity later on.

 

JP4:Finally, and this is the clincher, the very sentence in question presupposes that "this right" cannot ALREADY be a civil right because the sentence says that "this right" must be given recognition as a CIVIL right. Hence, "this right" must be a certain species of "rights" which provides an underlying foundation for the State to recognize it as a civil right. That species of right, of course, is none other than a moral right.

 

As the above little comparison makes plainly evident, the right being spoken of is clearly the moral right. Therefore, my contention, and indeed the understanding of all Catholics - Traditional or Neo-Conservative - is that there can be no licit civil right unless there is an underlying moral right. This only makes sense. The Church cannot tell society to recognize a civil right when it is immoral!

 

RS5: The "above little comparison" is one of the worst cases of question-begging, or using-as-proof-that-which-one-hasn't-first-proved, arguments that I have seen in a long time.

 

JP5: Translation: "John has really got me on the ropes".

 

RS6: Have you noticed how John never seems ashamed of being his own rooting section?

 

JP6: Rah Rah :)

 

RS5:John thinks nothing of inserting the word "moral" in order to prove his case, yet he has been asked several times to show proof, from Dignitatis Humanae, or any other Church document, where the Church has taught that religious freedom is a moral right. He hasn't been able to find any instance, yet he insists that the word "moral" belongs at the beginning of DH 2.

 

JP5:

 

Here's the next CAI News Flash: "Anything that concerns 'man's very nature' is a moral issue."

 

RS6: Man has a free will given to him by God to do what he pleases. If John wants to call that a "moral right" (that is, the right to choose) I have no problem with it. But when he starts saying that simply because man has the moral right to make choices about whom he will worship that this means we can invite him to a prayer gathering to pray to his false god and make it appear as if his praying to the false god is a morally right choice, then the line has been crossed. Again, the confusion John is having is making the proper distinction between having the moral right to free choice as opposed to making the right moral choice. And because he had failed to make this distinction, John continues to use Dignitatis Humanae to support the Assisi prayer gatherings.

 

JP6: But Robert, please understand this: it is YOUR IMPOSITION and YOUR PRESUMPTION which equates Assisi with "praying to the false god is a morally right choice". Do not misunderstand. Is it your sober opinion that the Pope believes this?

 

RS5: What is the reason Dignitatis Humanae does not say: "This moral right of the human person to religious freedom..."? The simple reason is that the fathers of Vatican II knew full well that they could not say "the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ," and then say men have "the moral right to religious freedom," for if man has the moral right to a religion other than the Catholic Church, then he certainly cannot have a moral obligation to join the Catholic Church. It could only be the case if the right to religious freedom is a different right than a moral right. What "right" is that?

 

JP5: It is not EITHER/OR, Robert. Man has both the moral right to religious freedom and the moral duty to seek after the truth. Religious freedom does not mean "religious license". It is bound to and ordered toward the truth. The right to religious freedom PRESUMES that the individual is sincerely seeking after the truth. Once the truth becomes known, however, no person has a right to refuse it because then his "religious freedom" becomes "religious license".

 

RS6: John says, "The right to religious freedom PRESUMES that the individual is sincerely seeking after the truth," but DH doesn't say that. How could it, since it cannot read men's minds? This is another fallacy in John's thinking. John thinks that everyone who now worships a false god is doing so out of a presumption of seeking the truth. John doesn't know that. If there is anyone who is PRESUMING, it is John Pacheco. DH only gave the right for man to have religious freedom. DH did not say that man's choices were morally correct, since there is only one morally correct choice – worship in the Catholic Church.

 

JP6: Robert says, "John thinks that everyone who now worships a false god is doing so out of a presumption of seeking the truth." OK. Let's think this one out loud. If what I say is not true, then does that mean that everyone who worships a "false god" is seeking error? I don't know many Muslims or Jews or Protestants, for that matter, who think they are seeking error by practicing their religion. Do you?

 

RS5:Well, let's play John's little word games with him. Unfortunately, we won't let John make up the rules as to which words we can use. John, for obvious reasons, decided to limit our choices as to the meaning of "This right" in Dignitatis Humanae's 2 statement: "This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right" to "moral rights" or "civil rights." But who says that "moral" and "civil" are our only choices? No one but John Pacheco. Since John led the way in adding words to try to prove his point, let us add a few words. For example, Dignitatis Humanae might have been referring to "natural rights" or "common rights" or "innate rights" or "historical rights" or "accepted rights" or "personal rights" or "societal rights" or "predetermined rights" or just about any kind of "right" within one's reason. John forces himself to add the phrase "moral rights" because he has made the decision that the pope did not err when he organized the Assisi prayer meetings and feels that, because the pagan does not sin by worshiping his false god, he thus has the moral right to worship his false god.

 

JP5: As I discussed above, ALL rights flow from a moral right. Despite Robert's fine "Sungenis Shuffle" in introducing all of these novel rights which are completely foreign to DH, he has no basis for doing so. DH is about two things: a moral right and a civil right. That's it. All the rights that Robert listed above fall into one of these two categories.

 

RS6: Let's take John at his own word. He says "DH is about two things: a moral right and a civil right." So let's ask John where DH says that religious freedom is a "moral right"? John's answer? "Oh, it doesn't have to say "moral right."" Now who is doing the shuffle? The very fact that DH uses "moral" in other places, but chooses not to use it when it speaks about "rights," ought to tell John something. But since John has already made up his mind that there is nothing wrong with Assisi, then he must find some way of justifying the fact that John Paul II made it appear that the pagans made the right moral choice when they prayed to their false gods at Assisi. Ergo, DH says men have the moral right to religious freedom.

 

JP6: Well, we'll just have to leave it to our audience to decide on what kind of right DH is speaking about. It can't be just a "right" because we all want to know FROM WHENCE THIS RIGHT COMES. Can you tell us, Robert? If someone says they have a "right" to something, I sure want to know the source of this right. Most "rights" are civil. They may or may not be ordered to the moral law. These days, the way Western culture is going, the civil and the moral do not always coincide. Regardless, the Church has ALWAYS insisted that the civil law be modeled after the moral law. So ANY RIGHT must be MORAL. There is no other alternative. The Church only speaks about a "civil right" in the text of DH in order to highlight and codify the moral law in civil legislation. There is no such baseless MORAL dichotomy between civil and moral rights. Any discussion of "rights" in DH is necessarily moral. If Robert disputes this, then he must explain ONE instance where any right anywhere can be legitimately divorced from morality. If he can't, he's just setting up a straw man with his objection above.

 

RS5:But, as we see, that is not what Vatican II said. Vatican II only said "rights," and it left the meaning ambiguous, as it often does in these crucial areas. I've written a whole article on this topic that was published in Catholic Family News, which you can find on our website. So if John thinks it must be "moral rights," we'll just kindly tell him that he is reading into the sentence what his presuppositions are demanding that he read, for Dignitatis Humanae did not use the word "moral" in front of rights. Now who is obeying Vatican II, me or John Pacheco?

 

JP5: Don't you mean "Robert Sungenis or John Paul II"?

 

RS6: Since John's whole basis for living is to adopt anything John Paul II says or does as his own, whether right or wrong, then John can substitute the name that is most appropriate for his purposes. As for the Assisi, I'll side with all the popes prior to John Paul II, as well as all the councils, saints, doctors and Fathers of the Church, for none of them taught or said anything even remotely close to what John Paul II did at Assisi.

 

JP6: Kinda like Acts 15 and gentile circumcision?

 

RS5:But let's take this one step further. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Dignitatis Humanae 2 is saying: "This moral right of the human person to religious freedom..." Is this any different than saying "This moral right of the human person to freedom" or "This moral right of the human person to free will"? Not really. For if it is a person's moral right to have a free will, he can exercise it in any number of ways. He can have political freedom, marital freedom, economic freedom, social freedom, and many other freedoms. He has the right to choose, because he has free will, or as Dignitatis Humanae says, "It is in accordance with their dignity as persons – that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility..."

 

But would this mean that the person has the moral right to worship a false god? Would he have the right to murder his spouse if he didn't like his marriage? Would he have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded building? The answer to all these is a resounding no. Having the moral right to exercise one's free will does not mean one has the moral right to choose something that is immoral.

 

Is it immoral to worship a false god? Yes. Even John Pacheco agrees with that. Later on in this dialogue he says: "The question is not about having a "moral right to worship a false god". I NEVER said that and neither did Vatican II. DH says we have a moral right to religious freedom. That's a HUGE difference."

 

Thus, if for the sake of argument, we agree with John that Dignitatis Humanae 2 meant to say: "This moral right of the human person to religious freedom," it would be safe to say that any interpretation of that phrase which concludes that the human person has the moral right to worship a false god would obviously be a misinterpretation of Dignitatis Humanae 2. As John said himself, Dignitatis Humanae 2 only allows the right to religious freedom, but it does not allow the right to worship a false god.

 

But this brings us right back to where this whole argument started. Is it not John's interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae 2 (i.e., "This moral right of the human person to religious freedom") which claims John Paul II is justified in allowing pagans to worship their false gods? Yes. John's original claim is that the Assisi prayer gatherings – gatherings where the human person prays to and worships his false god – were justified because, as John claims, Dignitatis Humanae said the human person has the right to religious freedom. Yet, as we see above, John also says there is a "HUGE difference" between "religious freedom" and "worshiping a false god." Now, perhaps he can explain to us how there is such a "HUGE difference" when John is using the very right of religious freedom to sanction the praying to and worshiping of false gods at Assisi.

 

JP5: Religious freedom presupposes the search for truth. Just as the Church encourages all people of good will to search for the truth, She must respect *the means* by which this is sometimes accomplished i.e. through other religions. Yet, how can someone arrive at the truth of Catholicism without searching? And how can someone say that an individual does not have the moral right to search? If one has a moral duty to seek the Catholic faith, then one must have the moral right to arrive at that truth. The dignity of the human person demands that, created in the image and likeness of his Creator, he remain free to search for and embrace what he believes to be the truth. This is a moral right NOT BECAUSE of the false religion professed, but because of his intrinsic dignity as a human person.

 

RS6: John is again confusing the issues. If one has a moral duty to seek the Catholic faith, obviously the Church has the moral duty to preach the Catholic faith to him, not to foster the praying to pagan gods under the guise of religious liberty, which is what occurred at Assisi. The pagan's "dignity as a human person" could be no more enhanced than if he were to be shown the right path of worship and prayer at Assisi, rather than being taught that his prayer to pagan gods is morally acceptable in order to acquire world peace. In fact, John Paul II has UNdignified the pagan by depriving him of the very dignity that will bring him out of pagan idol worship.

 

JP6: The Holy Father preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ and witnessed Our Lord to them as the circumstance allowed. God respects the prayer of a man seeking after God. Talk to Cornelius.

 

JP5:

 

This is a very important point. Robert has been focusing on the object of the moral right (i.e. the religion) to the exclusion of the subject of this moral right (i.e. the person). We have no moral right to a false religion per se, but we have the obligation to submit to our conscience even if the objective truth is not yet known:

 

In fact, since Catholics are not Feeneyites, we believe that much of humanity will be judged on this basis; that is, whether or not they conformed to the natural law written on their hearts while they lived on earth. And since they have a moral obligation to follow their consciences, they have a corresponding moral right to see that their consciences are clean. Tangibly, this means practicing their religion and having the freedom to do it. By recognizing the "sanctuary of conscience" and the right to practice it, the Church is not complicit in promoting objective error. It only tolerates it precisely because of this dignity with which man has been endowed. It does not mean that pagans are not objectively wrong, or that Catholics do not have a duty to correct them. It only means that they are like Cornelius who need to be exposed to the Gospel.

 

RS6:Romans 2:15 is concerned with people who have never heard of the Catholic Church. God will deal with them as He sees fit. Assisi is not Romans 2:15. Earlier John claimed Assisi was like Acts 10. But what happened in Acts 10? Cornelius was told to confess his sins and be baptized. He was given this opportunity because God shows no respect of persons, that is, he gives baptism to whoever seeks for it, Jew or Gentile. Sorry to say, baptism was not offered to the pagans at Assisi. It has never been offered to them for the whole 16 years between Assisi 1 and 2. The pagans were sent home without one word said to them about confessing sins and receiving baptism, quite unlike what happened in Acts 10 with Cornelius. And since, as we saw a few posts back, Lumen Gentium 16 quotes Acts 10 [sic] as a basis for why the Church needs to preach the gospel of sin and baptism to the pagan, then Assisi is neither following Vatican II or Scripture. It is only misguided people like John Pacheco who insist that it is, since he has made as his bedrock premise that the pope can do no wrong.

 

JP6: Acts 17 was a completely different situation than Assisi. Paul was confronted and forced to make a defense of the Christian gospel. Assisi's objectives were different and must be understood in that light. Ever been to a wine and cheese with pagans, Robert? You know, some kind of schmoozing event totally unrelated to Apologetics? What is your disposition? Do you get up on the couch and preach fire and brim stone? Why not? Isn't that your duty? What about organizing a socially conservative group of Orthodox, Evangelicals, Muslims and Jews about fighting for your right to practice your religion? Tell me, what line do you open up with? Something from Acts 17, perhaps? Or maybe a little sprinkle of Unam Sanctum? That's sure to be a hit!

 

---

 

JP3: Here is my challenge to you, Robert. I am not asking you to make the logical case for a separation of a civil right from a moral right. I am not asking you to make the theological case for a separation of a civil right from a moral right. I am not even asking you to reconcile this separation with past Catholic teaching. Although these things are very important to do (and perhaps you can do it in the body of this dialogue), for now, I propose these two simple challenges to you:

 

#1 - Give us the biblical support for separating a civil right from a moral right.

 

RS4: Not a problem, John. Here are a few samples for you:

 

This one puts you in a jam, John. For if you argue that Shadrach, Mechach and Abednego did not have the civil right to worship the god of their choosing, then you will deny what you say Vatican II gave them the moral right to worship a god other than the true God. If you argue that there is no difference between a civil right and a moral right, then the civil right of worshiping false gods that Nebuchadnezzer is stipulating should have no conflict with the moral right of Shadrach, Mechach and Abednego to refuse Nebuchadnezzer's gods and worship only the true God.

 

JP4: Robert, you are loading this question. The question is not about having a "moral right to worship a false god". I NEVER said that and neither did Vatican II. DH says we have a moral right to religious freedom. That's a HUGE difference. In the example you cite above, Vatican II's teaching is pretty straight forward. It would say that Nebuchadnezzar does not have the moral authority to limit Shadrach, Mechach and Abednego's moral right to religious liberty. Hence, he must recognize the moral right in the secular realm and make it a civil right. Read DH,2 again. The fact that he has NOT recognized this moral right is irrelevant. The real question is SHOULD SHOULD SHOULD he recognize the moral right as a civil right. To this question, Vatican II unequivocally says yes.

 

RS5: Let's take John's words at face value. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Nebuchadnezzer should recognize the "moral right to religious freedom." Is this saying anything different than the "moral right to free will"? No, since if man has free will, he has the freedom to choose anything for himself, including religion. But everyone will acknowledge, however, that his freedom to choose does not mean he will always make the right choice, but nonetheless, he has the freedom to choose. So now we are back to square one. John and I both agree that men have free will to choose, whether it be choosing religion or any other thing. But though they have the right to free will" do they have the moral right to choose a religion other than the Catholic Church? The answer would be no. Dignitatis Humanae was clear that men have the "moral duty...toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." Again, they have a right to free will, but Dignitatis Humanae never said they have the moral right to worship in any religion other than Catholicism.

 

JP5: Robert, you are not answering the ultimate question. How can the Church tell society that its citizens have a civil right to something if there is no underlying moral right to it? Tolerating it is one thing. Giving it civil approval is quite another. Is it your opinion that the Church should encourage the State to confer a civil right on something that is false?

 

RS6: Giving someone a free will to make their own choices is not wrong. As I said earlier, God even gives the devil a free will to tempt mankind and cause havoc in the world, but that doesn't mean the devil has the moral right to do so. John needs to understand that what God allows is not always what God desires. God would certainly not invite the devil to set up pagan idol worship, yet if the devil decides to tempt man to do so, God tolerates it until He decides to deal with it. As to the question John thinks I'm not answering, if we interpret the statement "Man has a right to religious freedom" as merely a statement recognizing man's free will to make his own choices as to who he is going to worship, then there is no real difference between a moral right and a civil right. In that sense, man has a moral right to a free will. The problem comes in when John interprets "Man has a right to religious freedom" as the moral right to practice a false religion, such as occurred at Assisi (NB: John has defended Assisi as being an extension of Dignitatis Humanae). Man certainly has the moral right to a free will, but not to practice a false religion. That is the most crucial distinction in this dialogue. Unfortunately, John keeps diluting the distinction, or crossing over it whenever it is convenient, and he does so in order not to bring blame on John Paul II for organizing the Assisi meetings. John can't have his cake and eat it too. Since, as he says above, "We have no moral right to a false religion per se, " then inviting pagan religions to Assisi to practice their false religion means that John has given a moral right to what he knows to be an immoral action. If, on the other hand, John says that the pagan has the free will to choose which religion he will follow, I won't have any problem with his stance. I hope you see the difference.

 

JP6: If the pagan has the moral right to exercise his free will in religious matters, then that is properly understood as an authentic moral religious freedom. Assisi was called to bear witness to this truth: no one can be morally restricted from practicing their faith, provided public order is respected.

 

JP5: As to your question: "Do they have the moral right to choose a religion other than the Catholic Church?" Provided that their conscience demands it and without full knowledge of the truth - the answer is yes. Otherwise, Cornelius would not have been allowed to pray and be heard by God. A moral right exists on two fronts - within the dignity of the human person as its subject and toward the truth as its object.

 

RS6: This all depends on whether John has made the crucial distinction I stated above. If John is saying in the above statement ("Do they have the moral right to choose a religion other than the Catholic Church?") that pagans have a moral right to practice a false religion rather than saying pagans have, as a God-given right of free will, a right to choose whom they will worship, then I flatly disagree. John needs to make the proper distinctions. Injecting the aspect of "conscience" is not going to help the issue. "Conscience" refers to the instances, like Romans 2:15 we covered above, in which the pagan has never heard of the Church and probably never will before he dies. God will judge him based on how he has obeyed his conscience. But this is not what Assisi is about, John. It is your refusal to see the difference between "conscience" and Assisi that has caused this dialogue to be so long, and that is because you insist on holding as your foundation that John Paul II simply cannot make a mistake in this area. There is no issue of "conscience" at Assisi. The Church has always held that, though we tolerate pagans praying to false gods, we aren't supposed to invite pagans to pray to false gods! My gosh, a child could understand this. It's the same reason why you might tolerate your neighbor in Nepean worshiping Buddah in his home, but you wouldn't think of inviting him into your house to do so. When we make contact with pagans we are to preach the gospel to them, not encourage them to continue their pagan arts. We do what Paul did in Acts 17 and what Peter did in Acts 10 – tell them the gospel and seek to baptize them. We are not to make it appear that praying to their false gods is acceptable and will merit them world peace. It's really very simple, John. But as long as you hold on to the premise that John Paul II can make no mistakes, you will never see it.

 

JP6: And, frankly, as long as you hold on to the premise that YOU can make no mistakes, YOU will never see it. If the choice is between you and Matthew 16:18, guess who wins?

 

RS4: Jesus' moral command is that we do not resist the evil person. If we disobey Him, we are guilty of sin. But the civil authorities certainly give us the right to resist evil. In fact, they encourage us to do so.

 

JP4: So what you are saying is that if someone tries to rob you or rape your wife, you have no moral basis for resisting? That does not make much sense to me. Our Lord was talking about practicing genuine humility and love - not providing a moral opportunity for the wicked.

 

RS5: This is getting a little far-a-field from our subject, but I just want you to notice how John conveniently alters the literal words of Jesus so that he can win an argument. He does so by introducing an extreme and inapplicable event (rape) to escape what the words of Jesus say. Jesus said "do not resist the evil person." John hasn't dealt with that command, except to give us some glib reference to humility and love. One example given in the context is when an evil person strikes you on the cheek. If he does so, we are not to strike back, but offer him the other cheek. The civil law, however, states quite plainly that if you are struck on the cheek it is assault and battery, and you can sue the person who struck you.

 

JP5: But this does not help you in the slightest, Robert. First of all, the mere existence of civil laws is irrelevant to the discussion. The real question is: should the civil law be conformed to the moral law. And the obvious answer to that is...YES! Why is this the real question? Because the Church has a duty to tell the State that it must order its laws TO THE MORAL law. Do you disagree? I hope not. Secondly, this "striking the cheek" thing has certain applications. Turning the other cheek may apply to me personally in many circumstances, but I can tell you that if I were attacked with a knife, I would certainly defend myself. Are you suggesting that Catholic teaching says I have no moral basis for doing so?

 

RS6: No, the question at issue was not whether the civil law should be conformed to the moral law but whether there existed civil laws that were separate from moral laws ( You said: "Give us the biblical support for separating a civil right from a moral right."). Second, "striking the cheek" is not a matter of life and death, but a matter of suffering a minor injustice to achieve a greater good.

 

JP6: No further comment.

 

Matthew 19:9: "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

 

RS4: Civil law gives us the right to divorce for fornication, and to remain divorced, no matter how much our spouse may plead with us. Jesus' moral law, however, requires that we show forgiveness to a repentant spouse, and resume the marriage relationship.

 

JP4: Yes, but the Church does NOT approve of the civil laws to divorce whereas it DOES approve of the civil right to religious freedom. If you think the Church approves of the civil right to divorce, show us the proof.

 

RS5: Obviously, John does not know Catholic Canon Law very well. The Church most certainly approves of the civil laws that allow divorce for fornication. In fact, in order to procure an annulment, the Church first directs the Catholic to obtain a civil divorce. In other cases not dealing with annulment, the Church is just as open to civil divorce. (Robert went on to cite some Canon law and Catechism references)

 

JP5: Huh? This is a non-explanation. The Church does NOT approve of divorce PERIOD. It does not say "it's OK to divorce". It may use the fact that a couple is civilly divorced as a prerequisite to obtaining an annulment, but that in itself does not guarantee the couple an annulment. In your example of fornication, it is entirely possible that the State grant the divorce, but the Church might not grant an annulment. If the Church still had any influence with the State, Robert, do you think the State would make it a) easier to get a divorce or b) harder to get a divorce?

 

RS6: Notice how John conveniently erased all the statements I included concerning the Church allowing a civil divorce. You can read them in my last post. He also twists the issue. The point remains that the Church allows civil divorce for fornication, but encourages the offended spouse to seek to forgive the offending spouse, which is the higher moral law. The civil law comes into play when the moral law cannot be achieved, due to sin.

 

JP6: Just answer the question: when has the Church ever recognized a civil right apart from its moral foundation?

 

RS4: The Jews certainly had the civil right to divorce their wives, but in Matthew 19:6-8 Jesus shows us that the civil law of divorce was given for their moral debauchery, not because it was morally legitimate.

 

RS5: Again, John resorts to twisting in order to win an argument. The fact remains that in the times of Old Testament Israel, it was perfectly legal, under Israel's civil law (not moral law), to divorce one's wife. It makes little difference whether the civil law was good, bad or indifferent. It was given by Moses and permitted by God, yet, as Jesus shows, it was against the higher moral law of God.

 

JP5: Very good, Robert. Now, here is the question for you. If Jesus says it was against the higher moral law of God, what do you think the Church should tell the State to do?

 

A) Ignore His "higher moral law"
B) Follow His "higher moral law"

 

RS6: John still doesn't get it. We aren't dealing with the State. We are dealing with what God allowed in the OT, under Israel's civil law.

 

JP6: Yes, we are dealing with the State. That is what a civil right means. DH is telling Secular States to recognize a moral right of a human being in its civil legislation. The fact that you cannot concede this or even address it does more damage to your position than anything I could ever say.

 

RS4: The civil law of the Council did not allow preaching in the name of Jesus, but the Apostles disregarded that law and obeyed the higher moral law of God. And by the way, you'll have the same problem with this one as you have with Daniel 3:13-14, since, in your view, the Apostles would have the civil AND moral right to not preach Jesus Christ.

 

JP4: No, Robert. You are misunderstanding this whole exercise. We do not have a moral right to do anything other than the truth as we understand it - regardless of the civil law which might say otherwise. Again, Acts 5:28 supports my thesis and not yours. Peter and the Apostles DID NOT recognize the civil law BECAUSE it was not ordered to the MORAL law. Again, this is yet another example of the civil law being under the authority of the moral law.

 

RS5: John claims I misunderstand it, but he is only projecting his own misunderstanding. It makes little difference what the civil law SHOULD BE. Everyone knows we should have civil laws that don't conflict with morality, but the reality is that there are many civil laws that are either amoral or immoral. My only challenge was to show a biblical basis that there is a difference between a civil law and a moral law, not to show how we can make civil laws better. John is fighting a straw man of his own choosing.

 

JP5: Robert says...

 

If it is immoral to "pray to false gods", Robert, then please explain why DH promotes and encourages the civil right to do so? If "everyone knows" that it is wrong to have a civil law conflicting with a moral law, then why didn't DH recognize this very basic and TRADITIONAL Catholic teaching? Instead, under your rubric, it recognized something that "everyone knows" to be wrong! Does that make sense to you?

 

RS6: Perhaps you need to read DH again, John. DH does not promote the civil right to pray to false gods. It promotes the right to freedom, even in religions matters, because it knows that man has been given a free will by God. DH cannot take the right of free will away from man, and thus it cannot coerce men, just as it tells the government that it cannot coerce men. Conversely, DH promotes that men have a "moral duty" to seek the Catholic Church (DH 1) and a "moral obligation" to seek for the truth (DH 3).

 

JP6: What? DH does not promote a civil right to pray to a false god? Isn't that what you've been saying all along? It sure has. At least you are starting to concede that there can be no moral separation between a civil and a moral right. Furthermore YOUR comments themselves only serve to provide a basis for Assisi since one of the central objectives of Assisi was to, as you say, "promote the right to freedom, even in religious matters".

 

RS6:As to the issue of civil laws versus moral laws, in a perfect world without sin, the civil laws will conform to the moral laws. But in a world of sin, a world in which men, by their own free will, can choose to sin, then there is sometimes a dichotomy between what the moral law desires and what the civil law must tolerate. That is the same dichotomy, for example, that Moses demonstrated when he allowed civil divorce in Israel, knowing full well that the higher moral law of God was against divorce. The reason Moses could make the distinction between what he would allow civilly and what was best morally was that the people were in sin ("hardness of heart"), and had the free will to continue sinning. Whenever the people sin, there is a disjunction between the civil and the moral.

 

JP6: Robert, Moses TOLERATED divorce. He did not confer a MORAL RIGHT to it. BIG BIG BIG difference. That's what our traddy friends have rightly pointed out with DH. They see a big difference between TOLERATING something and conferring a NATURAL AND MORAL RIGHT to it. The point here is that the Church has NEVER EVER separated a civil RIGHT from a moral RIGHT. How could it?

 

RS6:The same is true with pagans and false religions. It is morally wrong for them to practice false worship, but since they refuse to convert to Catholicism (and are sinning by doing so), then the next best thing is to allow their freedom on a civil law basis in order to keep the peace. If not, then men will be killing each other based on their religious convictions, which is a worse evil.

 

JP6: Just above (see the underlined section) you said "DH does not promote the civil right to pray to false gods." Now you are telling us that they have a civil right to practice a false religion otherwise there would be civil war. Well, which is it?

 

RS4: The civil law of Moses certainly gave the Pharisees the right to stone the adulterous woman, but Jesus appeals to a higher moral law of forgiveness.

 

JP4: Exactly. And so are you saying that the civil law of Moses was right? Of course not! The State must follow what the Church and Jesus commands. Show us where the Church approves of the civil law of stoning an adulterer. Again, as you are so wonderfully showing, the civil law must follow from the moral law.

 

RS5: Again, John resorts to twisting. The question is not what today's "Church approves," but what the Mosaic law of Israel stated during the time this incident of adultery took place. There was no "Church" at that time as we have today. And yes, I am saying the civil law of Moses was right. They stoned adulteresses quite frequently in Israel, all under God's command. Read Deuteronomy 22 and find out. Those laws served their purpose. But there was a higher law, one that introduced a greater morality, when Jesus was confronted by the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. It was more important for the Pharisees, and all the people surrounding Jesus, to find out what hypocrites they were than it was to stone the adulteress woman.

 

JP5: So what you are saying, then, is that Jesus ordered the civil law TOWARDS the "higher moral law". Would that be a fair statement?

 

RS6: Yes. Jesus was trying to get the sin out of the people. The more you get the sin out, the more the civil laws will match the moral laws. That is why he said, "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." But in the case where men decide to hold on to their sin (at the same time that we must still strive for peace so that men don't kill each other), we make distinctions between the civil law and the moral law, wherein the former tolerates lesser evils to a certain degree, whereas the latter is always against evil. DH can tolerate, to a certain degree, the sin of pagans worshiping false gods on a civil basis, since DH is looking at the bigger picture of man surviving, civilly, in a corrupt and sinful world, but DH never allows pagan worship on a moral basis. When it comes to morals, DH says men have the "moral duty" to seek the Catholic Church. Since they don't always do that, DH allows men the civil right to their own religious persuasions so that men can live together without killing each other. Obviously, DH knows that if one person worships a false god but another person worship Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church, and both refuse to give up their worship, then the next best thing is to recognize the civil freedom of each to worship whom they will so that there can be civil rest between them. In a nutshell, civil freedom leads to civil peace.

 

JP6: Just a moment here. You are missing the point, Robert. There is a difference between the State TOLERATING something and conferring a CIVIL RIGHT to it. You can have a peaceful society where the Church instructs the State to tolerate an evil. It is quite another matter to say that the State should confer a CIVIL right to an evil. Why? Because ANY civil RIGHT (not toleration, mind you) is ultimately founded on a moral right. You are trying to set this up so that the State must grant a civil right to its citizens in order to have peace. Yet, that is not at all established, historically speaking. And it certainly has no basis in magisterial teaching either. If you don't think so, ask your Remnant buddies. They'll tell you.

 

RS4: The civil law of Corinth certainly gave the Christians the right to take a grievance to court, but Paul is directing the Corinthians to a higher moral law of suffering a wrong without going to court.

 

JP4: This is an irrelevant passage to the question at hand. Paul is not allowing a separation between what the State SHOULD do and what the moral law is.

 

RS5: It's only "irrelevant" in John's mind. We are not talking about SHOULD'S and SHOULD NOT'S. Again, the challenge John stipulates was: "Give us the biblical support for separating a civil right from a moral right." That I have done. Paul is separating the civil right to take someone to court from the moral right not to take someone to court.

 

JP5: I thought that it was clear that we were dealing with "should or should nots" since that is one of the purposes of the Church: to direct society in what it SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do. That was the whole point of DH, for heaven's sake:

 

DH was primarily directed at the Communists. The Church was trying to tell them to get their dirty hands off of our moral right to religious freedom.

 

RS5: Your original challenge said nothing about SHOULDs and SHOULD NOTs. It said: "Give us the biblical support for separating a civil right from a moral right." Nevertheless, as for the SHOULD and SHOULD NOT issue, I dealt with that in my last paragraph.

 

JP6: I thought it was implied. Regardless, your problem remains since you have not been able to reconcile the normative separation.

 

RS4: Same thing as in 1 Cor 6:1. The civil law gave recourse to adjudicate a matter if one was unjustly wronged, but Peter says it is better to bear the injustice.

 

JP4: Yes, it is better, but not a sin. If the State's laws are moral, then there is no problem. Of course, there is always the higher calling of bearing injustice, but that is an entirely different question as you cite some relevant passages here:

 

RS5: No, its not an entirely different matter at all. In fact, in the case of religious freedom, we can, for the sake of argument, say that man has a moral right to freedom and that this should be a civil right, but the higher moral law is that he should not be using that freedom to justify his worshiping of other gods.

 

JP5: But this only PRESUPPOSES that he is acting against his conscience and that he has been confronted with the truth. Take the case of the Chinese Communist Government who regularly persecute people of faith. Isn't it IMMORAL for them to persecute and prevent religious people (Non Catholic Christian or otherwise) from practicing their faith? If it is not immoral to stop them from worshipping publicly, then why should the Chinese government recognize the civil right to their public worship? Separating a civil and moral right ain't so easy now, is it?

 

RS6: The Chinese government has the moral obligation, so says DH, to allow man the freedom to choose his religion. DH also says that the person in China who is choosing his religion has the "moral duty" to seek the Catholic Church. If the person in China has not been informed that he has the moral duty to seek the Catholic Church, then when someone from the Catholic Church meets him, that Catholic has the moral obligation to tell the Chinese person about his moral duty to the Catholic Church. But that didn't happen at Assisi, did it, John? When the pope met up with the pagans, he did not tell the pagan of his "moral duty" to seek the Catholic Church. He told the pagan to keep praying to his false god, and told him that his prayers were so good that they could even bring world peace. Thus he went against what DH 1 specifically states. John Paul II turned the right to religious freedom into the right, on a moral basis, to worship a false god.

 

JP6: Robert, we've been over this before. The Pope pointed to Jesus as their "peace". He also witnessed to Jesus' divinity. There are different ways to communicate a pagan's moral duty to seek Christ. If you don't think so, go up to a Muslim and tell him that Jesus was God. Then ask him if he believes such a statement puts any moral obligation on him as a Muslim.

 

---

 

JP3: #2 - Name one other prominent Traditionalist (Ferrara, Woods, Davies, etc.) who agrees with your separation between a civil right and a moral right.

 

RS4: I don't know. I never discussed it with them. But this dialogue is not about me and them, it's about you and me.

 

JP4: Well, that's partly true of course. This dialogue is between you and me, but it affects a much wider audience. You really should find out what your camp believes about it. Having read enough of the Traditionalist position, I am reasonably well certain that your view is completely foreign to their position. In fact, as you are well aware, DH is the most contentious and problematic document for the Traditionalist camp PRECISELY because of this issue of "error having rights".

 

The Challenge asked you to name one other prominent Traditionalist which espouses your view. I am afraid that I must hold you to that. Surely, considering your relationship with Dr. Woods, it won't be that difficult for him to sign off on your understanding. Just a quick little paragraph confirming your view as consistent with the Traditional view - that's all I want. Can you supply it?

 

RS5: I don't have to supply you with anything except a defense of the position I am espousing. Obviously, there are some who agree with me and some who don't, as is usually the case. I don't know about Dr. Woods because we have never had an opportunity to discuss these things.

 

JP5: Uh. Not so fast. This question is the sine qua non of Traditionalism. If you want to play the traddy game, Robert, you need to abide by Traddy rules. And this issue is the first and biggest one on the list. That's why I originally called this little dialogue "Robert's Big Problem". Why? Because if you fire off that e-mail to Dr. Woods, you know what's gonna happen. And so does everyone else reading this dialogue. Either you will jump back to our side or you jump to their side. One thing's for sure: you can't sit on the fence forever. I think it's incumbent on you to resolve it with your friends at The Remnant. If you can't resolve it, then your allegiance with them is really not based on any kind of doctrinal concurrence, but simply on a convenience of attack. That's what the Protestants have, Robert. They don't agree on much, but they're all for joining forces to attack the Pope and the Catholic Church. If you let this issue ride, what's the real difference between you and a Protestant? Not a heck of a lot, if you ask me.

 

RS6: Here's "John's Big Problem." He caricatures Traditionalists as "attacking the Pope and the Catholic Church." This is the typical way neo-Catholics try to dismiss our arguments – by making us look like all we want to do is "attack" the pope. But nothing could be further from the truth. Don't be fooled by John's rhetoric. Traditionalists respect and revere the pope and the papacy much more than neo-Catholics do. Not only do we honor and obey all of what the popes and councils throughout history have taught, but we are also very concerned when our beloved pope makes a mistake. We want to bring him back to what his predecessors have taught, because we love him and don't want him to go down the wrong path. St. Paul made it plain in Galatians 1:8-9; 2:9-14, that he, an angel, and even pope Peter (outside of his domain of infallibility), could stray from the truth and begin preaching a gospel contrary to what we have learned in Tradition. We love the pope and the Catholic faith so much that we are willing to risk the ridicule and derision that people like John Pacheco and Pete Vere and Stephen Hand and Jim Likoudis and Mark Shea and the rest of the radical neo-Catholics foist on us. Pacheco, Vere, Hand, Likoudis and Shea don't love the pope or the Catholic Church anymore than we Traditionalists do. But they love being seen as loyalists. They think that by refraining from giving constructive criticism to the pope and his prelates that they are being real "Catholics." But that is not real Catholicism. It is misplaced affection. Those who really love the Catholic Church will stand up for ALL the truth of the Catholic Church. They will not live under the illusion that the pope is God and can make no mistakes. They will not live under the illusion that unless one agrees with everything the pope says and does then they are against the pope and the Catholic Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pacheco and company are not helping the pope, they are harming him, for they are unwilling to point out things he does that are not good for the Church. Ironically, Pacheco and company are ignoring the very Canon Law (212) that the pope put in place in order to elicit the questions and objections from the Catholic faithful that he needs to help him make the proper decisions. The pope does not live in a vacuum. God has given him not only previous popes and councils to guide him, but He has given him the whole Catholic world, of which we Traditionalists are a vital part.

 

JP6: No further comment.

 

JP4: The reason for the challenge, Robert, is simple. I highly doubt you will be able to find someone. Why? Because you have the unenviable position of not being either Traditionalist OR Neo-Conservative on this critical question. Here is why.

 

Both camps agree that a civil right is predicated on a moral right. The only separation is what side of the fence you fall on. The Robert Sungenis view, however, is a combination of the two:

 

RS5: The reason for the challenge, John, is that you are attempting to marginalize me so that you can gain some points in this discussion, but that is not going to work. You like to resort to such ploys, but I'm not going to be a party to it.

 

JP5: Whether it is going to work, I don't know. But you got one thing right, I *am* trying to isolate you. That's my job, Robert. Here are your choices: go further into Traddy land and cast foolish doubts on DH like Davies et. al. do OR create a novel position for yourself within Catholicism, unprecedented in the Church's history with virtually no one to support you OR understand that DH was a significant development of doctrine and come back to full and sincere union with the Supreme Pontiff. Pick.

 

You showed me a sizeable hole in your position, and I intend to blow it wide open. If you were to simply co-operate and e-mail your friend Dr. Woods (just a quickie, doesn't have to be that long - a paragraph or so), the avalanche would start. But you're not being a good sport about it. You keep passing the buck and refuse to co-operate. Tell me in all honesty, does that make your view more credible or less with our audience? If you refuse to seek concurrence on this issue within EVEN your own camp, how can you possibly seek to speak on this issue with any credibility or authority? You don't even have one guy who agrees with your position! How is that "Catholic"?

 

RS6:Since you mentioned Davies, I will tell you what he says, since it was just recorded in the Remnant in the June 30, 2003 issue. Here is what Mr. Davies said, and I find little to disagree with:

 

JP6: And how does this reconcile with Davies' view of a civil right and non-Catholics? It doesn't! It merely explains the backdrop to the problem. There is NOTHING in there that reconciles your view with Davies. Here is a perfect and simple example of what I am talking about, Robert:

 

Now, tell us, Robert, are you as gleeful as Davies was in Malta that an Anglican clergyman could not show his collar? Secondly, notice the "private/public" distinction which Davies' endorses? Well, that's the same attitude that is decimating Western civilization! "Whatever you do in your own bedroom is your business, but don't make it the public's business." This thinking is wrong. What you do in private is EVERYBODY'S business. You know, Robert, it goes back to Genesis and Cain refusing to be his brother's keeper. Sadly, this is the thinking that you and your neo-trad buddies endorse. You are unwittingly propping up one of the main pillars of the gay agenda.

 

RS5:In fact, I received the following email from a Traditionalist, named Brian Mershon, on July 16. He writes:

 

JP5: Mr. Mershon has already admitted to me that you are NOT holding to the classic Traditionalist position. Indeed, you are going against prior papal teaching:

 

RS6: Mr. Mershon has not said anything to me. And even if he did, he is not the final judge on this issue, least of all me. Nevertheless, the difference between Mr. Mershon and you is that he is trying to see if there is a way of joining the nuances I have introduced with what he understands as the "classical" position, whereas you have an agenda to rip apart anyone who dares question John Paul II and Assisi. I can trust Mr. Mershon much more than you, since I know that he does not have an agenda behind his statements.

 

JP6: No further comment.

 

JP5:

 

 

 

RS6: I hold to all these "classical" positions, and I don't see where Dignitatis Humanae denied any of them. If there are Traditionalists who think Dignitatis Humanae DID deny them, then in time I will discuss it with them, and we might have to agree to disagree on this subject.

 

JP6: Oh. PULEASE. You "agree to disagree on this subject"? How very tolerant of you, Robert! If only you could cut the Pope 1/10th of the slack you cut these guys -- and even that on a pastoral decision he made vs. a doctrinal question of profound importance between you and your traddy friends. C'mon, Robert. That is NOT acceptable. You are simply using one another for your own little agendas instead of fessing up to the sham doctrinal concordance you all pretend to have. That's the truth. Stop playing Episcopalian games.

 

RS6: But your attempt to use any differences we may have in an effort to marginalize me just makes me distrust you that much more, John. For if you will exploit something like that, you'll exploit anything, as you have been known to do. As for Leo XIII, he affirms precisely the distinction I made to you in this post. He writes in Libertas Humana: "While not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she [the Church] does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good."

 

JP6: Robert, read the citation CAREFULLY. He said that the Church does not forbid public authority "to TOLERATE what is at variance with truth and justice". He did not say that the public authority should confer a CIVIL RIGHT. And if you don't think that's a big difference, well, then, that simply proves that you are at variance with Davies YET AGAIN. After citing the very same selection that you do from Libertas Humana, Davies goes on to say:

 

JP3: Hint: You won't find one. "There is not the least suggestion in the teaching of any pre-Vatican II pope that there could be a natural right on the part of non-Catholics not to be prevented from propagating their errors in public." (Michael Davies, Development or Discontinuity, Latin Mass Magazine, Spring, 2002, p. 51).

 

RS4: It all depends on what Mr. Davies means by "natural right," "not to be prevented" and "error in public."

 

JP4: Robert. If you read the Davies article, there won't be ANY question as to where he falls. If you don't believe me, I can mail you the article and you can decide for yourself. I assure you - there is no confusion or misunderstanding. As the title of his article suggests Development or Discontinuity, there is no question as to what the author thinks of DH. The reason I bring this up is that you have some real difficulties to overcome with your current position within the Traditionalist fold - unless you want to suggest that Davies is not a good source for Traditionalism.

 

Remember, the challenge, Robert, name one prominent Traditionalist that agrees with your separation of a civil right and a moral right.

 

RS4: Don't forget my challenge, John:

 

JP4: I reject your logic. You state that to believe in the moral right to religious liberty is to "believe that a Christian has the moral right to worship a non-Christian god." This statement is, in itself, absurd. A CHRISTIAN is someone who believes in Jesus Christ! Therefore he does not have a moral right to religious liberty. The moral right to religious liberty PRESUPPOSES that the person is seeking after the truth. In such a situation, he has the moral right to continue his search and worship according to his conscience. However, once he believes he has found the truth, like the Christian you referred to above, the search is OVER and he NO LONGER has "religious liberty". Religious liberty is at the service and under the Truth. Once the truth is found, he has no "moral right" to religious liberty because the search is now over.

 

RS5: You certainly have the right to reject my logic, since, according to Dignitatis Humanae, you have the free will to do so, but whether you have made the right moral choice is another story altogether. Very simply, your above argument can be neutralized by bringing in other logical fallacies of your position that you apparently didn't consider. First, where does Dignitatis Humanae say, as you claim above, that the "Christian...does not have a moral right to religious liberty." You conveniently make a distinction, but you fail to show us where DH makes the distinction.

 

JP5: A Christian does not have a moral right to religious liberty IN THE SENSE that he can choose another religion other than the Christian one as DH,1 says above.

 

RS6: I asked you where DH said so, not where John Pacheco says so.

 

JP6:

 

"All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it." (DH,1)

 

RS5: Second, it is the position of John Paul II that when pagans pray to their false gods they are praying to the true God. As I state in my papers, commenting in his encyclical on the meeting at Assisi on October 27, 1986, where 160 world religions were gathered to pray with the Pope, John Paul said: "We prayed with one voice to the Lord of history." (Ut Unum Sint 76, May 25, 1995). So obviously, John Paul thinks there is nothing immoral about praying to a pagan god. John Paul II, as you say, is "embracing and holding on to" the truth that praying to a pagan god is the same as praying to the true God. If that is the case, then why would John Paul be opposed to a Christian praying to a pagan god, if, as he says above, praying to a pagan god is praying to the "Lord of history"? After all, is that not what Cardinal Law, under the auspices of John Paul II, recently did when prayed to a pagan god? He claimed that there was no immorality in what he did, and that in fact, he said it was allowed because it "promoted dialogue" between Catholicism and the pagan world.

 

JP5: So Cardinal Law prayed to a god other than the Trinity? Did he tell you that? Here we go again with this mystical power that you have in reading peoples' hearts and souls. I guess these powers would include bi-location. Do your patrons get a break on the airfare charge now that you can be at two places at once?

 

RS6: Save your sarcasm, John. It doesn't impress me. It just shows me the lengths you will go to in order to excuse anything the prelates do today. As for Cardinal Law, I suggest you read the newspaper accounts in the Boston Globe and his own personal comments before you start objecting. From what you wrote above, it appears that you didn't even avail yourself of investigating the story before you jumped to Law's defense. But that is just par for the course for you at the present time. It doesn't matter what the prelates do, John Pacheco will defend their atrocities. And please let us know why you choose not to speak about what the pope said in Ut Unum Sint that he and the pagans "prayed to the Lord of history."

 

JP6: Is that what you think he said in Ut Unum Sint. OK. Read on. Let's find out....

 

RS5:And by the way, John, do you believe that praying to a known pagan god, such as Buddah, is the same as praying to the true God?

 

JP5: No I don't. But if God was pleased with Cornelius' pagan prayer and answered it, how is it that Robert Sungenis thinks he can exercise a veto over it?

 

RS6: You don't believe praying to Buddah is the same as praying to the true God?? Then I'm sorry to inform you that you and the pope have just parted company. As I noted above (which you didn't answer) at Assisi on October 27, 1986, where 160 world religions were gathered to pray with the Pope, John Paul said: "We prayed with one voice to the Lord of history." (Ut Unum Sint 76, May 25, 1995). So obviously, John Paul thinks there is nothing immoral about praying to a pagan god. John Paul II, as you say, is "embracing and holding on to" the truth that praying to a pagan god is the same as praying to the true God. So here we have John Paul II saying that he and the pagans prayed to the "Lord of history," but John Pacheco says that praying to Buddah is not the same thing as praying to the Lord of history. Sounds like John Pacheco has a different view than John Paul II. Sounds like John Pacheco I has drawn his line in the sand on this particular point. Or perhaps, sensing he just trapped himself, John will seek to defend the pope by saying that the pagans of Assisi did not pray to the "Lord of history." But in that case, the pagans must have been praying only to their false gods, without the Lord of history as their object of prayer. Either way John goes, he is stuck, and he has just indicted John Paul II for promoting pagan idol worship.

 

JP6: "In 1986, at Assisi, during the World Day of Prayer for Peace, Christians of the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities prayed with one voice to the Lord of history for peace in the world. That same day, in a different but parallel way, Jews and representatives of non-Christian religions also prayed for peace in a harmonious expression of feelings which struck a resonant chord deep in the human spirit." (UUS,76)

 

Did you catch that, Robert? THE CHRISTIANS PRAYED TO THE LORD OF HISTORY. He does not say, as you say he does, that "the PAGANS prayed to the Lord of History". So, your whole objection is blown away quite easily. C'mon, Robert, this only shows that you are simply parroting some Remnant screed against the Holy Father instead of doing your homework. I can't believe you'd be that sloppy on your own.

 

RS5:You have your work cut out for you, John, and I certainly don't envy your position. Sooner or later you are going to come to the point of no return. You will realize that there is no justification for promoting pagan prayer to pagan idols for any reason.

 

JP5: Work? Nah. This is surprisingly pretty easy. When you are in the truth, work is like play.

 

RS6: If it is so easy, then why did you skip over explaining the pope's statement about what occurred at Assisi 1986?

 

JP6: I just did. Now, I'd like to read what your excuse is for being so inexcusably negligent in your reporting?

 

RS5: It is a break, pure and simple, from Scripture, Catholic Tradition, and the Catholic Magisterium. There is not one word about such practices in Vatican II, nor any other papal or conciliar decree.

 

JP5: If you want the TRADITIONAL doctrine between a civil and moral right, Robert, ask any of your friends at The Remnant. Just remember: when THAT break comes, as it surely will one day, the gang and I will be here for you. Amen.

 

RS6:I got this letter, today, from a member of Catholics United for the Faith (you know, the neo-conservative think-tank). I suggest you heed his words:

 

I am a thinking member of CUF. I, too, have spoken out against his pantheistic leanings within my Catholic circle of friends and have faced much criticism. They, like James Likoudis, think that they must hang on, fawn over, and accept every word that the pope utters. Many Catholics are caught up in the pope's cult of personality and cannot see the forest because of the trees in regards to some of his questionable conjectures and actions. This is a real problem in our society as you probably already sense. The pope's gatherings in Assisi with his pagan friends was solemnly condemned by Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos. Pius XI seemed to have a clearer view of unity than does this present pontiff. John Paul II, to the detriment of the faith of many Catholics, apparently believes the fallacy that there is unity in diversity. The message that I received after the Assisi fiascos was that it was OK to be a pagan since god loves them and they will attain salvation (implied). Why should I continue to worship God as a Catholic then? Is the pope preaching "cheap grace" or just relativism? Keep up the great writing because introspective Catholics dedicated to the Truth will always appreciate it.

 

In Christ's Truth, Gregory

 

JP6: Well, I have no objection to him being a thinking member of CUF - just as long as he keeps thinking and does not settle for inherent contradictions and straw men. If he is true to himself, his "thinking" will no doubt lead him through Sherwood Forest and out of Camelot.