40) Isn't religious freedom a result of man's freedom?
Freedom is not an absolute value. It was given to man so that he might freely choose the good. That he might choose evil is only a consequence, and at the same time an abuse, of this freedom. More precisely: freedom was not given to man so that he might choose between good and evil, but so that he could freely direct himself towards the good.
Why did God give man freedom?
Freedom of the will is a consequence of reason; it is necessary for man to be able to love God (which creatures without reason cannot do). It thus confers on men a great dignity that places them well above creatures without reason.
Doesn't freedom imply the power to do evil?
In the actual state of things, for man freedom implies the ability to do evil, but not the right (a murderer does not have a right to kill his neighbor). A man who chooses evil abuses his freedom.
For man, what is the rule of good and evil? Is it his conscience?
It is true that man must act according to his conscience, but he first has the duty to enlighten it, because the conscience is not the ultimate criterion of good and evil: it is only an intermediary transmitting an obligation that does not depend on it.
Can a man incur guilt by following his conscience?
Yes, a man can be guilty though he follow his conscience–guilty, not because he follows his conscience, but because he previously warped it (for example, a doctor who persuaded himself that abortion is not a crime), or because he was negligent in forming it correctly in the first place (for example, an unbeliever who was never concerned about religious truth).
Cannot a man have a warped conscience without it being his fault?
Yes, a man can have an erroneous conscience about something or other (believe that a bad action is good) without it being his fault. In such a case one speaks of an invincibly erroneous conscience (or of a person in a state of invincible ignorance). In this case, ignorance prevents the man from being guilty, but the action remains bad in itself.
Must the State respect such a person's conscience?
Let's suppose that a murderer is subjectively innocent because his false religion inculcated in him the conviction that murder is licit in certain conditions. Yet this subjective conviction does not give him an objective right: the policeman who stops him from carrying out his act does not commit an injustice. Someone who would affirm that murder is certainly bad, but that the murderer has, because of his human dignity, a right not to be prevented from killing would be called crazy.
Who maintains such a thing?
This is just about what Dignitatis Humanae claims. This document indeed teaches that all men have the duty to seek the truth and to receive it, but it adds that if someone, knowingly or unknowingly, adheres to error, he has a right not to be prevented from acting in accordance with the error, in the name of his human dignity.
Does not someone who is mistaken in good faith deserve a certain indulgence?
Someone who is mistaken in good faith no doubt deserves to be treated with charity and prudence, but he does not thereby acquire a right to disseminate his error. A food distributor would never have a right to distribute products dangerous to health under the pretext that he is acting in good faith. Likewise, religious error being deadly to souls, it is normal for the State to prevent its propagation.
Is the diffusion of heresy a great evil?
The Church rightly considers the diffusion of heresy as murder committed against souls.
41) Did the new liturgy keep the Feast of Christ the King?
The new doctrine introduced by Vatican II is translated into the liturgy: in the new missal (1969) the Feast of Christ the King was moved from the last Sunday of October to the last Sunday of the liturgical year in order to signify that the reign of Christ the King will not come until the end of time and that it cannot (or must not) be accomplished at present. They removed from the hymn for the Vespers of this feast the three stanzas which speak of Christ's reign over society:
|
Scelesta turba clamitat Regnare Christum nolumus Te nos ovantes omnium Regem supremum dicimus.
Te nationum præsides Honore tollant publico Colant magistri, judices Leges et artes exprimant.
Submissa regum fulgeant Tibi dicata insignia Mitique sceptro patriam Domosque subde civium. |
Though evil crowds cry once again With frenzied will, Yet our exulting voices sing, And hail Thee, universal King.
The rulers of the nations all Shall at Thy feet adoring fall, All judges magnify Thy name, All laws and arts show forth Thy fame.
Let kingly crowns more glorious shine When consecrated, Lord, as Thine: Place Thou our land and homes today Beneath Thy mild and gracious sway. |
Why did the Church's authorities denature the Feast of Christ the King in this way?
Lex orandi, lex credendi, the saying goes. The formulas of prayer are also the expression of the faith. Now, religious freedom is in total opposition to the principles formerly professed by the Church. That is why the promoters of religious liberty cannot invoke in their favor either Sacred Scripture or the Tradition of the Church. It was always the enemies of the Church (heretics, rationalists, the "Enlightenment" philosophers, Freemasons, etc.) who clamored for religious liberty.1
Is Vatican II explicitly opposed to the social reign of Christ?
Dignitatis Humanae completely ignores Christ the King; given the subject being spoken of, it is a very serious omission. The text does not forbid States to profess Catholicism (that would be too contrary to Tradition), but it gives no encouragement whatsoever. It merely tolerates the public profession of the Catholic religion on the same basis as that of false religions.2 In practice, since 1965, the Vatican has worked at the suppression of Catholic States.3
What was the Church's conduct in this regard before Vatican II?
As soon as the Church obtained her freedom [Edict of Milan, A.D. 313], she exhorted the kings and princes, especially if they were Christians, to protect and defend the true religion. In mission lands, she principally strove to win over the princes to the Catholic Faith in order to facilitate the establishment of a society permeated with the Christian spirit.
42) What are the consequences of religious liberty?
The first consequence of the religious liberty preached by Vatican II was that the States that were still officially Catholic had to change their constitutions. Thus religious freedom led to the laicization of the State and an ever-widening dechristianization of society. Since the same rights are given to erroneous beliefs, the true faith is disappearing more and more. Man who, because of his fallen nature, generally tends to follow the path of least resistance, needs the help of Catholic institutions. In a society marked by the Catholic Faith, more men will save their souls than in a society where religion is a private affair and the true Church must exist side by side with innumerable sects possessing the same rights.
Which countries had to change their constitutions following Vatican II?
A characteristic example is that of Colombia. The population of this country was 98% Catholic, and the Catholic religion was the only one officially recognized by the Constitution. The president, reluctantly, had to yield to the pressure exerted by the Vatican in the name of the Council, and to change the Constitution, which was done on July 12, 1973. About the same time, the Protestant sects, financially supported by the United States, set out to conquer Latin America. Today, the country is overrun by the sects. Some towns have more Protestant temples than Catholic churches.4
Has the Council's religious freedom been imposed on other countries?
Two Swiss cantons, the Tessin and the Valais, under pressure from the Apostolic Nuncio, also had to change their constitutions.5 In Italy, a new concordat was signed on February 11, 1984: the false religions obtained equal treatment with the Church, etc.6 It is Rome that has demanded these changes!
Can you give a final example?
The case of Spain is particularly interesting because the concordat signed on August 27, 1953, between Spain and the Holy See was considered by Pius XII as a model of its kind. The first article began like this: "The Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion continues to be the religion of the Spanish nation." The concordat ratified the Fuero de los Espagnoles [the Spanish Charter] of July 13, 1945, whose Article 6 was particularly clear:
The profession and practice of the Catholic religion, which is that of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection. No one shall be disturbed for his religious beliefs or the private exercise of his religion. There is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations other than those of the Catholic religion.7
What happened after 1965?
The Declaration Dignitatis Humanae openly contradicted this Article 6. Under Vatican pressure, in 1967 Spain granted liberty to other religions, explicitly citing Vatican II:
After this declaration of the Council, the necessity arose of modifying Article 6 of the Spaniards' Charter in virtue of the aforementioned principle of the Spanish State.
This is why the organic law of the State dated 10 January 1967 has modified the aforementioned Article 6 as follows: "The profession and practice of the Catholic religion, which is that of the Spanish State, enjoys official protection. The State guarantees the protection of religious liberty, which shall be guaranteed by an effective juridical provision which will safeguard morals and public order."
It must be noted that this modification had been approved by the Hoy See before publication.8
What does the example of Spain show?
Spain's example shows the flagrant contradiction between the traditional doctrine and that of Vatican II, since what was praised before 1965 became worthy of condemnation immediately afterwards.
What does the application of the Vatican II document on religious freedom prove?
The years following Vatican II have shown the truth of Leo XIII's statement that religious liberty necessarily leads to immorality. In formerly Catholic countries, it is not only faith that has disappeared, but also Christian morality. Marriages fail, families break up, criminality rises, and one can scarcely find anyone willing to exercise authority. Anyone taking a candid look at things today has to recognize that our society is descending into chaos. The situation will never really change until society once again recognizes Christ as its King and refuses to give free rein to error. For, as Cardinal Pie stated, "When He does not reign by the benefits attached to His presence, He reigns by the calamities inseparable from His absence."9
43) What is meant by ecumenism?
The word ecumenism designates the movement that arose in the 19th century among non-Catholics, the goal of which was to foster the reconciliation and collaboration of the various Christian confessions. This movement led to the foundation of the World Council of Churches in 1948.10 The same ambition subsequently led to a movement of mutual understanding with non-Christian religions. This is what is called interreligious dialogue.
Where does the term ecumenism come from?
"Ecumenical" means "universal." Fr. Charles Boyer, S.J., explains:
The renewed use of the word ecumenism is due to the fact that the Protestants, desiring to designate a universality and finding the word catholic already employed by the Roman Church, chose its equivalent: ecumenical.11
Why did the Protestants feel the need to work towards the unity of Christians?
Having rejected the authority of the Church's teaching authority, or magisterium, which alone can guarantee unity in the true faith, the Protestants very rapidly split into countless sects and confessions. To preserve some credibility and retain their members drawn by Catholic unity (the threefold unity of faith, worship, and government), they needed to find a way to unite in a different manner: the ecumenical movement was born.
What was the Church's attitude towards the ecumenical movement?
In the beginning, the Catholic Church clearly kept its distance. It was only during Vatican II that ecumenism officially entered the Church.
Did Vatican II treat of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue?
Vatican II consecrated a special decree to ecumenism, called Unitatis Redintegratio. It also promulgated the Declaration Nostra Aetate, which treats of the relations of the Church with the non-Christian religions.
Where can one find the veritable Catholic position on ecumenism?
The true Catholic position on ecumenism is expressed in the Encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928). In it, its author, Pope Pius XI, describes the efforts of the "ecumenists" in a way that remains pertinent:
Assured that there exist few men who are entirely devoid of the religious sense, they seem to ground on this belief a hope that all nations, while differing indeed in religious matters, may yet without great difficulty be brought to fraternal agreement on certain points of doctrine which will form a common basis of the spiritual life. With this object, congresses, meetings, and addresses are arranged, attended by a large concourse of hearers, where all without distinction, unbelievers of every kind as well as Christians, even those who unhappily have rejected Christ and denied His divine nature or mission, are invited to join in the discussion.12
How did Pius XI judge these ecumenical activities?
He continues:
Now, such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism....13
How does the Pope conclude?
He concludes:
To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.14
44) What judgment in keeping with the Catholic Faith should we make of ecumenism?
Since the Catholic Church is the only Church founded by Christ and the sole possessor of the fullness of truth, the unity of Christians can only be re-established by the conversion and return to its bosom of all the separated brethren and communities. Such is the teaching of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos:
There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it; for far from that one true Church they have in the past fallen away.15
This judgment is simply the logical consequence of the Church's claim to alone possess the truth, for there can only be true religious unity in the true faith.
Before Vatican II, was the Church disinterested in the separated communities?
The Church has always striven to bring the members of separated Christian communities to the unity of the Mystical Body. More often its efforts were brought to bear upon individuals, but sometimes, too, upon entire separated communities. During the Councils of Lyons (1245 and 1274) and of Florence (1439), for instance, the hierarchy was intent upon restoring the union of the Eastern schismatics separated from the Church since 1054. In 1869, while convoking the first Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX invited the separated Christians to put an end to the schism and to return to the bosom of the Church;16 Leo XIII addressed a similar appeal to all the Christian confessions in 1894.17
How did these initiatives differ from today's ecumenism?
These initiatives differed from current ecumenism because they were accompanied by the firm conviction that it is not up to the Church to change, but to those who are separated from it. The Church was always ready to facilitate their return, but never at the expense of faith.
45) What is the new conception of ecumenism?
At Vatican II, the Church adopted a new attitude corresponding to a new doctrine. The Catholic Church is no longer presented as the unique religious society leading to salvation; the other Christian confessions, and even the non-Christian religions, are considered as other expressions (undoubtedly less perfect, but nevertheless valid) of the divine religion, paths really leading to God and eternal salvation. It is no longer question of the conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic Church, but of dialogue and religious pluralism.
Can you give an example of this new attitude?
The Decree on Ecumenism uses the word "Church" (in the plural) to designate the other Christian communities, whereas previously this had always been avoided. When "Churches" were spoken of, local Churches were meant, like the Church (that is to say, the diocese) of Lyons or Milan.
Wasn't the word "Church" used to designate the Eastern schismatics?
The word "Church" was sometimes used broadly to designate the schismatic confessions that have conserved the apostolic succession and all the sacraments, but it was firm teaching that there is only one Church in the strict sense, because our Lord has only one Spouse. The heretical dissidents received the name of confessions or communities, but they were not ascribed the title of Church. Today, however, this has become completely common.
What is the theological foundation of this new attitude?
The theological foundation of this new attitude has already been indicated in Question 29: it is the "subsistit in" of Lumen Gentium.18 Instead of saying that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, the document of Vatican II says that the Church of Christ "subsists in" [subsistit in] the Catholic Church.19
Why did Vatican II introduce the expression "subsistit in"?
By the expression subsistit in, Vatican Council II posits a distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church (whereas for traditional theology, these two terms are synonymous: The Church of Christ, that is to say the supernatural society founded by our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of mankind, is the Catholic Church.)
What exactly does the expression "subsistit in" mean for Vatican II?
Vatican II indeed is willing to admit that the Church of Christ has its perfect realization (its "subsistence") in the Catholic Church,20 but it conveys the idea that it is not identical to the Catholic Church: the Church of Christ would extend beyond it, imperfectly, thanks to "elements of the Church" present in other Christian confessions.
Is this really the correct interpretation of the "subsistit in"?
This interpretation was officially confirmed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Declaration Dominus Jesus of August 6, 2000:
With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that "outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth,"21
that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.
(Question 44 will be continued next month)
Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from Katholischer Katechismus zur kirchlichen Kriese by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, professor at the Herz Jesu Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in Zaitzkofen, Germany. The original was published in 1997 by Rex Regum Press, with a preface by the District Superior of Germany, Fr. Franz Schmidberger. This translation is based on the second edition published in 1999 by Rex Regum Verlag, Schloss Jaidhof, Austria. Subdivisions and slight revisions made by the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé have been incorporated into the translation.
1 The high Freemasonic dignitary Yves Marsaudon, 33rd degree, minister of the Supreme Council of France of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite) in his book Ecumenism Seen by a Freemason of Tradition [French] (Paris: Vitiano, 1964), p. 121, speaks of religious liberty as "the revolution desired by John XXIII." He insisted: "One can truly speak of a revolution" that "originating in our Masonic lodges, wonderfully extended to the dome of St. Peter's."
2 Vatican II is content to say: "If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice" (DH 6).
3 Moreover, Vatican II intends to forbid any discrimination based on religion, going so far as to put it on the same level as discrimination because of race, color, or class: "The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion" (Nostra Aetate, §5. See also Dignitatis Humanae, §7).
4 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, L'Eglise infiltrée par le modernisme (Brôut-Vernet: Fideliter, 1993), pp. 111-13.
5 See Documentation Catholique, 1653 (May 5, 1974).
6 See Documentation Catholique, 1872 (April 15, 1984); Romano Amerio, Iota Unum (Sarto House, 1996), pp. 167-72.
7 See Documentation Catholique, 948 (September 30, 1945), p. 691 [our emphasis].
8 See Michael Davies, "Dignitatis Humanae and Spain," The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (Neumann Press, 1992), pp. 275-82.
9 Cardinal Pie, Discourse at Chartres, April 11, 1858, Oeuvres Épiscopales, I, 84.
10 This Council defines itself as "a community of Churches that recognizes Christ as God and Savior." The religious denominations which belong to it remain independent. The Council has no authority over them; they can accept or reject its decision as they wish. It is no longer necessary for each of its members to recognize the other communities as Churches in the strict sense. The Catholic Church is not a Member of the WCC, even if it has moved closer to it.
11 Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, s.v. "Christian Ecumenism" [French]. In its primary meaning, the word ecumenical ("universal") was used to designate the general councils of the Church, distinguishing them from particular councils (see Q.19 of this Catechism, The Angelus, July 2007, pp.13-15). Today the word has acquired a new meaning.
12 Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos (January 6, 1928), §2 [English version: Angelus Press, 1998].
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., §15.
16 Pius IX, Letter Iam Vos Omnes (September 13, 1868).
17 Leo XIII, Letter Praeclara Gratulationis (June 20, 1894).
18 See the November 2007 issue of The Angelus, pp. 35-38. It should be remembered that father of the expression "subsistit in" is a Protestant: Pastor Wilhelm Schmidt.
19 Vatican II, Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church, I, 8. The same expression is employed in the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae §1: "We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church."
20 Note 56 of the Declaration Dominus Jesus (August 6, 2000) specifies that the Church of Christ only has this concrete realization (has its "subsistence") in the Catholic Church.
21 Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, §8; see John Paul II, Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, §13. See also Lumen Gentium, §15 and the decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, §3.