Religious Liberty, Individual liberty, -- preserves purity of doctrine

Some groups claim they are against religious liberty . One of those that appears to me to oppose religious liberty (as seen on this board board) is the Catholic church (and a few others).

It appears to me that they are arguing that religious liberty would result in a lot of confusing doctrines - no standard of pure doctrine. chaos.

IT also appears to me that they shoot their own argument in the foot while making their case.

========================

If you really believe that no one should use free will, religious liberty - to make up their own mind about what is right or wrong -- then you can make no appeal to a non-Catholic to accept Catholic doctrine - since choosing to do so would require that the person reject their own church magesterium and tradition -- evaluate arguments to the contrary - and make a choice against the teaching, direction, approval of their own respective magesterium. The very thing you say - should not be done.

In Acts 17:11 we see people doing that very thing. Rejecting the tradition, authority , doctrine of their magesterium and switching from Judaism to Christianity by "studying the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

That means that there is only one logical view - and that is the one for religious liberty where individuals decide for themselves.

UNLESS we find someone here saying "I believe in doctrine 'X' because my Catholic church tells me to - and since you are not Catholic and I believe you have no religious liberty - I think your only option is to conclude that the Catholic teaching is in error - your own group is has the correct view and you should believe as you are instructed to by your group's magesterium regarding the existence of religious liberty and free will" -- we don't even have a test case to evaluate the existence of a no-religious liberty proposal. They violate their own proposal each time they argue that their view is the right one and others should be able to see the point.

But we never see that. Because that does not work.

The very existence of a board like this and the discussions we find here - even by those who claim there is no religious liberty or else there "should be no religious liberty" proves over and over that religious liberty is in fact the only option.

====================================================== for the sake of a point of reference

EWTN on "the problem of religious liberty"


"

The Problem of Religious Liberty: A New Proposal​

Author: Thomas Storck

THE PROBLEM OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: A NEW PROPOSAL
Thomas Storck

" We are all likely familiar with arguments of this sort, arguments made in varying ways by theologians who refuse to accept all the teachings of the Church's magisterium.1 When pressed for specifics, moreover, the two points on which they generally allege the Church has changed her doctrine are the licitness of usury2 and the question of religious liberty. And if the magisterium really has changed on these issues, then it is hard not to concede to them their point. For if the teaching of the ordinary magisterium on usury or religious liberty has changed over the centuries because of changing social conditions, then why not teaching on contraception or divorce? Therefore, it seems to me of the greatest importance for orthodox Catholics to be able to demonstrate that the Church has never changed any point of its magisterial teachings nor can she."

...

"How widespread in time and place must a teaching be found before it becomes "universal," for example? In the case of religious liberty we have the teachings of at least four popes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, most of them speaking in formal documents such as encyclicals, and seemingly speaking at variance with the doctrine contained in the Vatican II document <Dignitatis Humanae> (Declaration on Religious Liberty). We should be curious, to put it mildly, to understand how the Church could seem thus to contradict herself when proclaiming God's truth. Yet if all efforts to solve the problem are not successful, it is possible that, despite appearances, the earlier teaching on the subject was not part of the Church's "ordinary and universal teaching," and therefore the problem is more apparent than real. But if it is admitted that the teachings of Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII on the subject of religious liberty are part of the ordinary magisterium, then we must by some means show how their teaching was not changed in 1965, when the decree on religious liberty was adopted.

We see individual responsibility - (religious liberty as well) -- in the Act 17:11 example above and as the Bereans move from their current understanding into accepting Paul's Christian doctrine - they are actually restoring purity of doctrine in their own lives, heart, soul.

This is how truth is preserved as error comes in trying to take it down and it is how truth is restored in cases where error has become the prevailing form in regard to a given doctrine as Paul points out in Gal 1:6-9

FireDragon76 said:

It doesn't matter what individuals might think, the Vatican does not oppose religious liberty.

From Dignitatis Humanae:

Click to expand...

I certainly like that idea!!

But when I read this thread -- by a very well known catholic participant on this forum --- #1

Followup on the OP quotes --


"The problem of reconciling the teaching of these nineteenth and twentieth century popes on religious freedom with that of the Vatican II document <Dignitatis Humanae> has already occupied a number of commentators and occasioned comment by Pope Paul VI. There seems to be some general agreement that efforts hitherto to reconcile the two teachings, while helpful in many ways, have not been completely successful.4"


"encyclicals and other documents or statements of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII teach that non-Catholics have no right to religious liberty, particularly public profession and preaching of their doctrines, even though peculiar circumstances may render it necessary to allow public profession of heresy in the interest of some greater good, such as the avoidance of civil strife. A sample of the relevant texts follows:

Gregory XVI, Encyclical <Mirari Vos> (August 15, 1832):

And from this stinking fountainhead of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous opinion or rather nonsense, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and demanded for anyone whatever.6

Pius IX, <Syllabus of Errors> (December 8, 1864): (The following are condemned propositions.)

no. 77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

no. 78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.

no. 79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.7

Leo XIII, Encyclical <Libertas Praestantissimum> (June 20, 1888):

...
Pius XII, <Ci Riesce> (December 6, 1953):
Although there are more passages setting forth this teaching, notably several of Leo XIII,10 these selections accurately give the sense of the traditional view."

from the same web site link as in the prior post:

======================================= begin quote

"But, seemingly to the contrary, the Second Vatican Council teaches the following in <Dignitatis Humanae>:


The apparent conflict here concerns public worship and proselytizing activities, since the papal teaching quoted earlier never contemplated suppressing private religious actions. But how far is the conflict real?

"In <Dignitatis Humanae> itself there are two limitations of the right to religious freedom.

• First, this freedom is restricted "within due limits" and by "the just requirements of public order."
• Second, the assertion of man's right to religious liberty seems to be considerably qualified by a further statement in the declaration. This statement appears in the paragraph immediately preceding the section quoted, and runs thus:

So while the religious freedom which men demand in fulfilling their obligation to worship God has to do with freedom from coercion in civil society, it leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ.12

"What do these reservations mean?"

"I suggest the following:

• That "the just requirements of public order" vary considerably between a Catholic state and a religiously neutral state. If a neutral state can prohibit polygamy, even though it is a restriction on religious freedom, then a Catholic state can likewise restrict the public activity of non-Catholic groups.
• "The just requirements of public order" can be understood only in the context of a people's traditions and modes of living, and in a Catholic society would necessarily include that social unity based upon a recognition of the Catholic Church as the religion of society, and the consequent exclusion of all other religions from public life. Western secular democracies, committed to freedom of religion for all sects, find no contradiction in proscribing polygamy, although some religions permit it, because its practice is contrary to the traditions and mores of these nations. A Catholic country can certainly similarly maintain its own manner of life.

What about the repeated declarations in <Dignitatis Humanae> about religious freedom as a personal human right? The Council proclaims, I think, an abstract human right, but a right that is not necessarily fully applicable in any given circumstance or place. Because of the "dignity of the human person" man does indeed have a right to religious liberty, in fact, by giving us a free will God has necessarily given us a kind of religious liberty, including the liberty to err. But this does not mean that this liberty may be exercised without reference to anything else. There are many rights that are contingent upon circumstances. Man, for example, has a right to marry. But what of those who are impotent or who cannot find anyone to marry? The right is a right in the abstract and not necessarily in any given concrete situation. Furthermore, even in a Catholic confessional state there is a certain religious liberty, that is, a liberty to privately exercise one's non-Catholic faith, to meet corporately but privately with one's co-religionists. This is a real liberty, occasioned by the "dignity of the human person," but also restricted within "the just requirements of public order."

But what of the second limitation on religious freedom found within <Dignitatis Humanae> itself?

Usually the supposed contradiction in Church teaching on religious liberty is seen as a conflict between earlier papal teaching and <Dignitatis Humanae>. But if the text of <Dignitatis Humanae> is taken seriously this is not so. <Dignitatis Humanae> states, as I quoted above, that it "leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of . . . societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ." The moral duty of societies toward the true faith and Church, however, is precisely those propositions found in the traditional papal teaching supposedly at variance with <Dignitatis Humanae>. In other words, if an interpretation of the declaration is insisted upon that conflicts with Gregory XVI, Pius IX, <et al,> then <Dignitatis Humanae> conflicts with itself, for, as I just quoted, the earlier teaching, far from being changed, is explicitly left intact. If we keep this in mind when reviewing the declaration, we will see that the common interpretation, although at first glance seemingly obvious, must be based on a misunderstanding. Probably <Dignitatis Humanae> was intended to be irenic, and perhaps some of its framers wanted to change the teaching, but as Fr. Most points out, "we must confine ourselves to what the writer succeeded <in setting down on paper explicitly.>"15 No one will deny that <Dignitatis Humanae> says what it says in a curious way, but I think I have shown that one need not read it in such a way that it conflicts with former teaching.

BobRyan said:

....
"What do these reservations mean?" "I suggest the following:

• That "the just requirements of public order" vary considerably between a Catholic state and a religiously neutral state. If a neutral state can prohibit polygamy, even though it is a restriction on religious freedom, then a Catholic state can likewise restrict the public activity of non-Catholic groups.
• "The just requirements of public order" can be understood only in the context of a people's traditions and modes of living, and in a Catholic society would necessarily include that social unity based upon a recognition of the Catholic Church as the religion of society, and the consequent exclusion of all other religions from public life. Western secular democracies, committed to freedom of religion for all sects, find no contradiction in proscribing polygamy, although some religions permit it, because its practice is contrary to the traditions and mores of these nations. A Catholic country can certainly similarly maintain its own manner of life.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

I don't see an unbridgeable chasm between the statements about religious freedom, esp. given the historical contexts surrounding them. EWTN is a very conservative voice in Catholicism, but not the only perspective.

Click to expand...

Well it comes to a conclusion that many would find to be "not" religious liberty in that quote above.

FireDragon76 said:

All societies, even the most free, have religion bounded in such a way as to preserve that society's vision of public order. In the US, for instance, we don't allow human sacrifices.

Click to expand...

The text above goes far beyond "no human sacrifices". It says that non-Catholic groups cannot be accepted as "The religion of society" and should be excluded from "public life".

Jipsah said:

the Second Vatican Council teaches the following in <Dignitatis Humanae>:

The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others. The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. 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.

Click to expand...

This EWTN article challenges some assumptions people made from <Dignitatis Humanae>

BobRyan said:

Followup on the OP quotes --

The Problem of Religious Liberty: A New Proposal | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

"The problem of reconciling the teaching of these nineteenth and twentieth century popes on religious freedom with that of the Vatican II document <Dignitatis Humanae> has already occupied a number of commentators and occasioned comment by Pope Paul VI. There seems to be some general agreement that efforts hitherto to reconcile the two teachings, while helpful in many ways, have not been completely successful.4"


"encyclicals and other documents or statements of Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius XII teach that non-Catholics have no right to religious liberty, particularly public profession and preaching of their doctrines, even though peculiar circumstances may render it necessary to allow public profession of heresy in the interest of some greater good, such as the avoidance of civil strife. A sample of the relevant texts follows:

Gregory XVI, Encyclical <Mirari Vos> (August 15, 1832):

And from this stinking fountainhead of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous opinion or rather nonsense, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and demanded for anyone whatever.6

Pius IX, <Syllabus of Errors> (December 8, 1864): (The following are condemned propositions.)

no. 77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

no. 78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.

no. 79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.7

Leo XIII, Encyclical <Libertas Praestantissimum> (June 20, 1888):

...
Pius XII, <Ci Riesce> (December 6, 1953):

​

"The duty to suppress moral and religious error cannot, therefore, be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinated to <higher and more general norms> which, <under certain circumstances>, permit and may even make it appear that the best choice for promoting <greater good> is the toleration of error.9​

​

Although there are more passages setting forth this teaching, notably several of Leo XIII,10 these selections accurately give the sense of the traditional view."

Click to expand...

Very specifically highlighted here #10