QC vs. DH

Quanta Cura is a document by Pope Bl. Pius IX solemnly condemning the errors of the Liberals (or Rationalists/Naturalists) of his day who desired to have God completely purged from public life, and make the supreme law the will of the masses, subject to nothing else (not even God)--in other words, pure positivism--of course, he rightly and prophetically predicted that doing so would cause a loss of true justice and morality in society and violence and the desire for material gain and pleasure would replace truth as the governing principle.

The relevant errors solemnly condemned are as follows (my numbering and emphasis):

Quanta Cura said:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that"[1]the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "[2]that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "[3]liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

---

Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

Click to expand...

The first thing to note is that these errors are quotations from particular works and therefore are being condemned in the sense in which they were originally given. #1 is that notion that society is better off without paying heed to the true religion. However, Dignitatis Humanae asserts the opposite of that error:

Dignitatis Humanae said:

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. 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.

Click to expand...

It also bears pointing out here that DH says nothing one way or the other about Catholicism being the established religion of the state other than if that is the case, then authentic rights of everyone must be respected.

#2 also refers to the positivist and materialist notion of public peace, one far removed from the Catholic understanding of the common good. It also refers to an absolute (see also Cardinal Newman's analysis of #3 below)--the BEST form of society. In fact, the BEST form of civil society is one where everyone is Catholic and faithfully so. In fact, in such situations, maintaining the common good may require the state to place more strict limits on false religious activity, such as foreign missionaries, who while not harming public peace conceived of in a materialist fashion, do harm the common good and the unity of society.

Furthermore, when the entire society is Catholic, the rulers are also members of the Church and the Church may delegate her spiritual coercive power to the state, who would act as the arm of the Church to coerce heretics and other offenders to repentance. This coercive power of the Church is still acknowledged (Can. 1311 — Nativum et proprium Ecclesiae ius est christifideles delinquentes poenalibus sanctionibus coercere. (1983 Code of Canon Law)). Those subject to its jurisdiction are the Baptized (cf. Canon 204). As the Counter-Reformation scholastic theologian and expert on St. Thomas, Francisco Suarez, notes,

Suarez said:

"Punishment of crimes only belongs to civil magistrates in so far as those crimes are contrary to political ends, public peace and human justice; but coercion with respect to those deeds which are opposed to religion and to the salvation of the soul, is essentially a function of spiritual power, so that the authority to make use of temporal penalties for the purposes of such correction must have been allotted in particular to this spiritual power, whether the penalties are to be inflicted directly by the said power, or whether it avails itself of the ministry of its temporal arm that all things may be done decently, in order and efficaciously."

Click to expand...

Defensio fidei catholicae Book 3, chapter 23, para 19

The Liberals wanted Catholic countries to essentially repudiate Catholicism from their public life. That is what is being condemned. Similarly, concordats by Paul VI after Vatican II with certain Latin Americans countries contain provisions for similar restrictions. Furthermore, The Catechism, citing Quanta Cura itself in the footnotes, explains the nature of the just limits on false religious activity briefly mentioned in Dignitatis Humanae:

CCC said:

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

Click to expand...

As we see here, the limits depend on the circumstances. The Catholic notions of the "common good" and the "objective moral order" are key here (for example, in 1985, John Paul II urged the Italian government to forbid the blasphemous movie "Hail Mary" from being shown, even though it was not harming "public peace.") The more diverse a society, lesser limits (ie mutual toleration) tend to aid toward the common good, where the more Catholic a society is, the greater the limits on false religious activity need to be imposed lest the common good be reduced, rather than advanced. Furthermore, the state has a duty to defend the authentic freedoms of the Church. If her mission is hampered unduly by false religious activity or anything else for that matter, even if that activity does not harm the peace in a materialist fashion, the state must intervene. DH teaches this as well:

Dignitatis Humanae said:

13. Among the things that concern the good of the Church and indeed the welfare of society here on earth-things therefore that are always and everywhere to be kept secure and defended against all injury-this certainly is preeminent, namely, that the Church should enjoy that full measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men requires.(31) This is a sacred freedom, because the only-begotten Son endowed with it the Church which He purchased with His blood. Indeed it is so much the property of the Church that to act against it is to act against the will of God. The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and governments and the whole civil order.

Click to expand...

continued...