tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post8733355996323101084..comments2024-03-22T18:43:00.710-04:00Comments on Unam Sanctam Catholicam: Vatican II and Religious LibertyBonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-36335812587588296302011-08-27T10:41:38.972-04:002011-08-27T10:41:38.972-04:00Haha...this post was done by Anselm. We shall have...Haha...this post was done by Anselm. We shall have to ask him!Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-17634721017200766412011-08-27T03:16:31.596-04:002011-08-27T03:16:31.596-04:00Have you had any luck in solving this difficulty i...Have you had any luck in solving this difficulty in the last three years?Ben Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-43933915578746997672011-01-30T10:52:08.427-05:002011-01-30T10:52:08.427-05:00Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for the comment. To your f...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. To your first point: I think that Davies' summation is still accurate, even though DH does not use the word 'error' since it does say that: <br /><br />"the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it... (2c)"<br /><br />My own most recent opinion as to how DH may avoid contradicting the previous magisterium lies in the distinction natural rights in civil society vs. natural rights in Catholic society.<br /><br />The key line may be this, that: "Religious liberty... has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. THEREFORE it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctine... (1).<br /><br />In short, we could say that, whereas the previous magisterium has addressed the rights and duties concretely operative in societies which have been reached by divine revelation, DH chose instead to address the more abstract question of what rights and duties would be (or in some cases are) operative in a society unreached by divine revelation.<br /><br />To your second point, I know well that many popes (and others) have asserted that Vatican II is in perfect continuity with tradition. Showing that it is so is more difficult, even if it can be done. Furthermore, I am not so sure that Pope Benedict XVI, for one, agrees that DH is in continuity with the 19th and early 20th century magisterium, although he asserts that it 'recovers' a deeper patrimony. In his justly famous 2005 Christmas address to the Roman Curia, he says (in the context of speaking about DH and religious liberty) that: <br /><br />"The Second Vatican Council, with its new definition of the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity it has actually preserved and deepened her inmost nature and true identity."<br /><br />It seems to me (not only on the basis of this selected quote, but from the whole context) that Pope Benedict XVI would see the statements of his predecessors of the 19th and early 20th century as historically conditioned prudential decisions open to later revision and reversal rather than as doctrinal teaching per se.<br /><br />Just some thoughts!<br /><br />Pax.Anselmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-66779022905196091412011-01-17T21:23:21.677-05:002011-01-17T21:23:21.677-05:00I read this book by Davies and likewise found it t...I read this book by Davies and likewise found it thought-provoking. So I did some research. Here are a couple of my confusions regarding Davies' 'apparent contradiction.'<br /><br />Immediately following his exposition of the logical contradiction, Davies writes, “It is unlikely that anyone would dispute the fact that the first proposition is an accurate expression of the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae, although, of course, Dignitatis Humanae does not use the word error.”<br /><br />The word error is, in fact, very important. If DH used that word, it would fly in the face of the encyclicals Davies cites. Instead, Vatican II refers Man's (negative) natural right _not to be impeded_ in the search for truth, within reasonable limits that the Council lays out (see especially paragraph 7, DH). This is not the same as saying, "man has a right to be wrong." It rather says, "Man must freely choose."<br /><br />In addition, popes from Paul VI to Benedict XVI have asserted that Vatican II (and even Religious Liberty specifically, as defined in DH) are in perfect continuity with previous social teaching. See especially Paul VI "Popularum Progressio," John Paul II "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, and Benedict XVI "Caritas in Veritate."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com