Wolfe: Farewell, for now

It has been an honor to occasionally write for Rorate, especially on liturgy, sacraments and sacred music. The same goes for the op-eds in newspapers I have been fortunate to have published on the Latin Mass over the last several years.

Traditional Catholics get French Highest Court for Administrative Matters to Act for the Liberty of the Church when Bishops didn't

Note: The following is an article published in the French daily Le Monde, not known for Catholic sympathy.  The remarkable fact referred to in this article is that a group of Traditional Catholic priests and laity brought a suit to what is the French equivalent to the Supreme Court on administrative and governmental matters to celebrate Mass within the situation of the Covid-19 crisis.  The French Bishops Conference protested against the situation but did not follow up with an appeal to the Court.  This shows where the power lies in the battle that will be engaged in the future between a secular state that is inimical to the Christian faith and its practice and those Catholics who believe and will fight for their rights against a secular and anti-religious State.  

The original decisions of the Conseil d'État are available here (the main one is number 440366)

 Conseil d’Etat lifts the "disproportionate" ban on religious celebrations in France

By Cécile Chambraud for Le Monde 

May 19, 2020

The government has eight days to relax the ban on public religious ceremonies in places of worship, in effect since March 15. The Conseil d’Etat ruled Monday, May 18, that the general and absolute ban on all gatherings in churches, temples, synagogues and mosques, if it could be admitted in the first phase of the fight against the epidemic Covid-19, is “disproportionate” during this period of post-confinement.

Proceedings of Dialogos Conference on Dignitatis Humanae published

In 2015 the Dialogos Institute held an important conference in Norcia, Italy on the interpretation of the controversial Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae Rorate Caeli reported at the time (here and here). Now the Dialogos Institute has published a volume containing the interventions held at the conference.

Pink-Rhonheimer Debate

Prof. Thomas Pink, who has contributed to Rorate Caeli in the past, recently held a public debate on the important problem of the interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae with Fr. Martin Rhonheimer of the Opus Dei. The full debate is embedded above. Pink argues for the continuity of Dignitatis Humanae with the teachings of the 19th century popes, while Fr. Rhonheimer argues for discontinuity.

Cardinal Burke at Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium: Combat Secularization Within the Church Herself

Colloquium on Dignitatis Humanae in Norcia

On Friday Cardinal Burke opened the Dialogos Institute Colloquium on the proper interpretation of Vatican II’s Declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, currently being held in the Norcia, the birthplace of St. Benedict. In his opening remarks the cardinal thanked the Dialogos Institute for its work for the renewal  of philosophy and theology, and thus for the renewal of Christian society. He pointed out the importance of the question of religious liberty for such renewal. The Church can only accept teachings in organic continuity with Apostolic Tradition, and yet many theologians interpret Dignitatis Humanae as contradicting previous teaching. The Cardinal recalled one of his own teachers in canon law, a student of Fr. John Courtney Murray’s who had argued that Dignitatis Humanae represents a radical break with the magisterial teachings of 19th century popes. But, the Cardinal argued, the Church cannot accept any teaching on religious liberty that contradicts previous teachings, especially teachings on the social kingship of Christ, which belong to the deposit of faith itself. It is thus vital for the Church to reflect on the real content of her teaching with respect to Church/state relations, and religious liberty, especially given the current context of aggressive secularism and Islam. A new evangelization is needed even within the Church herself in order to re-discover the Apostolic Tradition, and to combat secular influences within the Church— including the influence of secular, indifferentist conceptions of religious liberty. Hence the importance of the current colloquium.

Places Still Available at the Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium in Norcia

There are still places available at the Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium in Norcia, from 30th October to 1st November. As we reported earlier, some of the most distinguished scholars in the Traditionalist movement (including Roberto de Mattei, Thomas Pink, John Lamont, and John Rao) will be debating the meaning of the most controversial of Vatican II's documents, in the presence of Cardinal Burke. Accommodation from the 29th October is with the Benedictine sisters of Norcia. Book now so as not to miss this unique occasion!

Registration Open for Religious Liberty Conference in Norcia

Registration is now open for the Colloquium on Dignitatis Humanæ to be held in Norcia, October 30th—November 1st. As  we reported in March, Cardinal Burke will be in attendance. The Colloquium is being organized by the newly formed Dialogos Institute, for the study of the patristic heritage in the spirit of Latin and Byzantine Thomism. The Institute describes the purpose of the Colloquium as follows:

Colloquium on Religious Liberty in Norcia

We are pleased to share the following announcement of a conference to be held in Norcia, the birthplace of St. Benedict, later this year. It is being organized by the Dominican theologian, Fr. Thomas Crean OP, who has written on the topic.

The Pope speaks on freedom to blaspheme: "If a close friend insulted your mother, you might punch him, right?"

In his airplane interview in the flight taking him from Sri Lanka to the Philippines, Pope Francis commented on the limits of freedom of speech:

[Question] Yesterday morning, during mass, you spoke of religious liberty as a fundamental human right. With respect to the different religions, up to what point can we go in terms of freedom of speech, that also is a fundamental human right?

[Pope:] Thank you for this intelligent question! I believe that they are both fundamental human rights: religious freedom and freedom of speech. We cannot...you are French, right? Well, then, let's go Paris, let's speak clearly. We cannot hide a truth today: each one has the right to practice his religion, without causing offense, freely, and we all wish to do this.

Secondly, we cannot offend, make war, kill, in the name of religion, that is, in the name of God.

That which is happening today surprises us, but let us always think of our history: how many wars of religion have we known! Think only of the Night of Saint Bartholomew [St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre]! How can we understand that. We also have had our sinners regarding this, but we cannot murder in the name of God, it's an aberration. To murder in the name of God is an aberration. I believe that is the main thing on religious liberty: we must practice it in liberty, without causing offense, but without imposing or murdering.

The 150th Anniversary of Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors

One hundred and fifty years ago today, December 8, 1864, Blessed Pope Pius IX issued his encyclical Quanta Cura, to which was attached the famous Syllabus of Errors. The encyclical begins with fierce clarity and lofty zeal for the integrity of the Catholic Faith, in words that may be taken as a standing reproach of wishy-washy shepherds today, who ambiguate and compromise articles of faith and morals:

With how great care and pastoral vigilance the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, fulfilling the duty and office committed to them by the Lord Christ Himself in the person of most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, of feeding the lambs and the sheep, have never ceased sedulously to nourish the Lord’s whole flock with words of faith and with salutary doctrine, and to guard it from poisoned pastures, is thoroughly known to all, and especially to you, Venerable Brethren. And truly the same, Our Predecessors, asserters of justice, being especially anxious for the salvation of souls, had nothing ever more at heart than by their most wise Letters and Constitutions to unveil and condemn all those heresies and errors which, being adverse to our Divine Faith, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, to purity of morals, and to the eternal salvation of men, have frequently excited violent tempests, and have miserably afflicted both Church and State. For which cause the same Our Predecessors, have, with Apostolic fortitude, constantly resisted the nefarious enterprises of wicked men, who, like raging waves of the sea foaming out their own confusion, and promising liberty whereas they are the slaves of corruption, have striven by their deceptive opinions and most pernicious writings to raze the foundations of the Catholic religion and of civil society, to remove from among men all virtue and justice, to deprave persons, and especially inexperienced youth, to lead it into the snares of error, and at length to tear it from the bosom of the Catholic Church.

Clear words, “prophetic words”

The follow originally ran in Riscossa Cristiana, translated by Rorate's Francesca Romana:

By Marco Bongi

“We will find ourselves more and more faced with someone who professes to speak to us in the name of God by telling us that we have no need of Him.”

I listened to these dreadful words spoken by Alessandro Gnocchi on the 8th March 2014 at the annual meeting of Civitella del Tronto.  The title of Gnocchi’s presentation was: “The Crisis of the Sacred and the Church kneeling before the World.”

At first reading this seems to be a provocative statement and a bit over the top.

However I have reflected on it for some time - not as a theologian which I am not - but as a simple layman who observes what is happening around him.

Now I have arrived at the conclusion that these are, indeed, “prophetic words” an expression which will make those who are [especially] fond of it in the wrong way very happy!

Here then are some simple thoughts on the matter:

1) In the final analysis, what is the religious liberty expressed in the concilar document Dignitatis Humanae? In the years following the document, the diplomacy of the Holy See didn’t do very much, in the name of the Council (and thus  God)  about the demand to remove  every reference to the religion of the State from the constitution, did they? In other words, it (The Holy See) was asked to declare in the name of God that God is not important.

2) Didn’t the same thing happen with ecumenism? In the name of God they forced us to believe that, fundamentally the differences among the various Christian religions and non-Christian ones too, are - all things considered - negligible i.e. whether God is present in the Eucharist or not, whether Christ is the Son of God Incarnate or not, whether “without Faith it is impossible to please God” or not –  these things are not important.  So God Himself ultimately, is not important to them.

3) And the question of the Mass of Ages? If you think about it a bit, the innovators hate it because it attributes too much importance to God and to the transcendent dimension of [our] relationship with Him. In the name of God, they oblige us instead, to give importance to man, the assembly and “the supper in the community”…

4) The harshness and intransigence which admits no discussion that the modern pastors hurl at every supposition of “ a war” started in the name of Religion is also shocking:  to wage war in defense of God is blasphemy, an inexcusable crime. Much more understandable instead, are the people’s revolts i.e. the occupation of factories and the so-called wars of liberation.   What does it mean? It’s obvious. God is not important, there is no sense in fighting to defend Him and, if you haven’t understood this [yet], we order you to understand it in the name of God Himself!

5) There would be many more examples, but looking at the near future, I would like briefly to mention the possible and probable, re-admission of the divorced and remarried to the sacraments. We will certainly have to accept it, in the name of God’s authority, even if God has clearly said: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” Moral: the law of God is not important, you must believe this in the name of God Himself!

6) And the praxis, (or what they like calling “the pastoral”), follows the new theology faithfully.  What does it mean?: imposing, de facto, Communion in the hand, impeding, de facto,  genuflections (since  the kneelers have been taken away) expelling, de facto, sin, the last things, the objectivity of morality from catechesis as well as homiletics?

This is why, in my view, Alessandro’s statement is truly prophetic, in the most authentic sense of this expression.

The final questions are consequently inevitable, even if they appear provocative:

Can the ecclesiastical authorities teach such things? Is it part of their legitimate powers? Do the faithful have the duty to obey such orders?

And, ultimately:

Will God accept being put to the side like a useless toy for much longer?

The "American Pantheon"

The seal of Bishop John Carroll

If you think religious liberty is a new concept in the Church, a Conciliar invention, you'll want to listen to this thought-provoking sermon. This is a solid reflection on how the Church conquered the pagan gods and turned their pantheon into the Basilica of St. Mary of the Martyrs, and how a new, virtual pantheon has been erected in the United States of America. Click here to listen to this quick sermon, brought to you through our partnership with Audio Sancto.

Neo-Triumphalism: George Weigel's Offenses Against Pious Ears

The latest article by Mr. Weigel in First Things is yet another in a series of articles wherein he touts the "triumphs" of Vatican II over the previous magisterium. This time, he does so by making fun of the former head of the Holy Office during the years before, during, and after the Council, His Eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani.

And to what purpose? Mr. Weigel implicitly embraces a hermeneutic of rupture by suggesting that Dignitatis humanae deviates from the Church's long-standing teaching that error should not be allowed to flourish in society; indeed, his writing suggests the embracing of the modernist doctrines condemned by Pius IX, those doctrines of latitudinarianism and pluralism in society.

His argument could be expressed like this: a pre-conciliar ultra-conservative got utterly silenced during the Council on the issue of religious freedom. Having silenced the bad guy, allegedly the Church now claims that the state has no competence in restricting or promoting truth in religion (against the teaching of the entire tradition), and so therefore, there is a new theology of religious tolerance of persons, wherein one cannot be discriminated because of their abhorrent religious ideas, even if that means they believe, for instance, in mass suicides or terrorism in the name of religion-- they should still be respected and tolerated in society, because, well, we believe in tolerance.

The real purpose of the article is revealed when he tries to show the secularists taking up the "old teaching" of the Church, and in the name of secularism use a "no tolerance" policy to discriminate against religious groups. This is convenient for Weigel, because it shows that the old theology was in fact very bad, and vindicates the new theology for being so egalitarian.

However, there are not a few errors in Weigel's argument.

First, Weigel knows that the actual doctrinal teaching of the document is one of the most disputed of the Council, and a definitive interpretation has yet to be given. He therefore claims a particular interpretation, his interpretation, unsurprisingly one of rupture with the past, in order to demonstrate his point; namely, that Ottaviani, representative of tradition and the evil pre-conciliar days, paved the way for the persecution of the Church by the modern state that took up his outdated doctrines.

Further, he knows that the false interpretation of this document was one of the greatest catalysts in the Abp. Lefebvre affair, and so Mr. Weigel uses his column to claim a sort of triumphalism of the Spirit of Vatican II over those who would remain firmly attached to tradition or at least the "reform in continuity" as the hermeneutic for interpreting the documents of the Council -- including Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. What he fails to do, however, is give the other side of the story, and that is that this program following a false interpretation of the Council has done nothing but diminish the Church's voice in the public sphere, resulting in an entire loss of Catholic identity, while at the same time not at all preventing the great persecutions of Catholics in the post-Conciliar age, including in our own days.

Finally, and this is perhaps the most truly grievous error, Mr. Weigel makes the mistake of placing on a similar level the teaching authority of the Church, who cannot err when teaching on matters of faith or morals, with the fallible judgments of those leaders in civil society (for instance, the promotion of Secularism). In doing so, his statements implicitly diminish the authority of the Church, and likens the claim that the Church has over the fullness of the truth to that of a modern, subjective State -- one whose "truth" is one among many, rooted in an arbitrary positivism or personal conviction of what one thinks is right or wrong, and without reference to an objective truth rooted in divine and natural law. Surely, more respect can be given for the authority of the Church, if not for one of her Princes.

In the future, it may help Mr. Weigel for him to begin with theology in order to correctly summarize events of the life of the Church in light of the truth of the matter, rather than in the light of political spectrums and intrigues, which, while perhaps may make for good journalism and great laughs, have no bearing on God's divine truth.

Herein lies the greatest difficulty of the neo-conservative position-- the true fruit of the nouvelle theologie of the mid-20th century: in the embracing of modern philosophies, one is no longer able to know anything with real certainty anymore. The faith becomes an entirely personal conviction devoid of an ecclesial dimension, and the law of non-contradiction becomes more of a guideline, rather than a logical premise. And people like Weigel, who think that they are holding a Catholic position and building up the faith by championing a program of modernizing the Church, in fact only succeed in leading people to error and confusion.

[Dominicus is a new contributor to Rorate Caeli, with posts of a more theological bent.]

[Image: Cardinal Ottaviani celebrates Mass on December 10, 1963, in the Church of Santa Maria di Loreto, Rome, for the Roman Union of Bakers - source: Biblioteche di Roma - Cinecittà Luce archives.]

Bishop Athanasius Schneider discusses Religious Liberty

Production: Catholic News Service (CNS)

Synod of Bishops - final list of propositions

The Holy Father allowed the non-official publication of the final list of propositions of the Synod of Bishops on the "New Evangelization" in English - the official Latin text will be made available in the future.

The entire list is available here, and includes the following:

Proposition 12 : DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II

The Synod Fathers recognize the teaching of Vatican II as a vital instrument for transmitting the faith in the context of the New Evangelization. At the same time, they consider that the documents of the Council should be properly read and interpreted. Therefore, they wish to manifest their adherence to the thought of our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, who has indicated the hermeneutical principle of reform within continuity so as to be able to discover in those texts the authentic spirit of the Council. “There is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God. [...] However, wherever this interpretation guided the implementation of the Council, new life developed and new fruit ripened” (Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia, 22 December 2005). In this way it will be possible to respond to the need for renewal required by the modern world and, at the same time, faithfully preserve the identity of the Church’s nature and mission.

Proposition 16 : RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Vatican II: A discussion that can no longer be stopped

Whatever might be said about the current situation of the talks between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and whatever one's doctrinal position might be, one thing is clear: the frank discussion of the ambiguities of Vatican II and of post-Conciliar Vatican documents vis-a-vis the pre-Conciliar Magisterium has begun, and can no longer be stopped. While it would be easy to exaggerate the quality, extent and openness of the discussion so far, it cannot be denied that signs of it have been appearing in unlikely places, such as the following article that was published last week by the Homiletic and Pastoral Review.

The New Evangelization: Quo Vadis?

Sept. 20, 2012 by Paul Kokoski. 

More and more, Catholics are shying away from using terms like “proselytizing,” “conversion,” and even “Catholic” in their ecumenical and inter-religious efforts, almost as if they were ashamed of the Gospel, or afraid of appearing as a “sign of contradiction.”

Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae states that every person has a “right” to religious freedom. They are not to be “coerced,” in any way, to act contrary to their own beliefs. In seemingly contradictory fashion, the same document exhorts Catholics to use the coercive power of truth in their missionary mandate to “make disciples of all nations”: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.” Dignitatis Humanae thus invites Catholics to be both non-coercive, and coercive, in their dealings with non-Catholics. “Non-coercion” is understood in a negative sense to mean “non-missionary.” “Coercion” is understood in a positive sense to mean “missionary.” Vatican II, then, is inviting Catholics to be both a non-missionary, and a missionary, people. It is asserting, in effect, that two contradictory views of reality are merely different perceptions of the same thing. One can see in this confusion the promotion of a lethal system of religious indifferentism.

De Mattei: "Religious Liberty - or liberty for Christians?"

Among the slogans of “politically correct” language there is the term “religious liberty”, which is used incorrectly at times by Catholics as a synonym for freedom for the Church or freedom for Christians.  In reality the terms and concepts are different and it is necessary to clarify them. The ambiguity present in the Conciliar declaration Dignitatis humanae (1965) arose from the lack of distinction between the internal forum, which is in the sphere of personal conscience, and the public space, which is in the sphere of the community, or rather the profession and propagation of one’s personal religious convictions. 

The Church, with Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1836), with Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus and in Quanta Cura (1864), but also with Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1885) and in Libertas (1888) teaches that:

• 1. No one can be constricted to believe in the private forum, because faith is a personal choice formed in the conscience of  man.
• 2. Man has no right to religious freedom  in the public space, or rather freedom to profess whatever religion, because only the true and the good have rights and not what is error and is evil.
• 3. Public worship of false religions may be, in cases, tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil, but, in essence, it may be repressed even by force if necessary. But the right to tolerance is a contradiction, because, as is evident even from the term, whatever is tolerated is never a good thing, rather, it is always a purely bad thing. In the social life of nations, error may be tolerated as a reality, but never allowed as a right.  Error “has no right to exist objectively nor to propaganda, nor action” (Pius XII Speech Ci Riesce 1953)

Further, the right of being immune to coercion, or rather the fact that the Church does not impose the Catholic Faith on anyone, but requires the freedom of the act of faith, does not arise from a presumed natural right to religious freedom or a presumed natural right to believe in any religion whatever, but it is founded on the fact that the Catholic Religion, the only true one, must be embraced in complete freedom without any constraints. The liberty of the believer is based on the truth believed and not on the self-determination of the individual. The Catholic and only the Catholic has the natural right to profess and practice his religion and he has it because his religion is the true one. Which means that no other believer apart from the Catholic has the natural right to profess his religion. The verification of this is in the fact that rights do not exist without responsibilities and duties and vice versa. The natural law, summed up in the ten commandments, is expressed in a prescriptive manner, that is, it imposes duties and responsibilities from which rights arise. For example, in the Commandment “Do not kill the innocent” the right of the innocent to life arises. The rejection of abortion is a prescription of natural rights which is separated from religion and whoever conforms to it. And this is the same for the seven Commandments of the Second Table. Comparing the right to religious liberty to the right to life, considering them both as natural rights, is however, nonsense.

The first three commandments of the Decalogue in fact do not refer to all and sundry divinities, but only to the God of the Old and the New Testaments. From the First Commandment, which imposes adoration of the Only True God, arises the right and the duty to profess not any religion but the only true one. This counts for both the individual and the State. The State, like each individual, has the duty to profess the true religion, also because the aims of the State are no different from those of the individual.

The reason the State cannot constrain anyone to believe does not arise from the religious neutrality of the State, but from the fact that adhering to the truth must be completely free. If the individual had the right to preach and profess publically any religion whatever, the State would have the obligation of religious neutrality. This has been repeatedly condemned by the Church.

  

For this reason we say that man has the right to profess, not any religion, but to profess the only true one.  Only if religious liberty is intended as Christian liberty, will it be possible to speak of the right to it.

There are those who sustain that we live actually in a pluralistic and secularized society, that the Catholic States have disappeared and that Europe is a continent that has turned its back on Christianity.  Therefore, the real problem is that of Christians persecuted in the world, and not that of a Catholic State. Nobody denies this, but the verification of a reality is not equivalent to the affirmation of a principle. The Catholic must desire a Catholic society and State with all his heart, where Christ reigns, as Pope Pius XI in the encyclical Quas Primas (1925) explains. 

The distinction between the “thesis” (the principle) and the “hypothesis”(the concrete situation) is noted. The more that we are obliged to suffer under the hypothesis, the more we have to try to make the thesis known.  Hence, we do not renounce the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ: let us speak of the rights of Jesus Christ to reign over entire societies as the only solution to modern evils. So, instead of fighting for religious liberty, which is the equalizing of the true religion with the false ones, let us fight in defense of liberty for Christians, today persecuted by Islam in the East and by the dictatorship of relativism in the West.

Roberto de Mattei 

[From: Corrispondenza Romana - July 19, 2012. Contribution and Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana. As always, posted articles reflect the views of their authors: we ask for a healthy debate in the comments.]

On the coercive authority of the Church: a response to Fr. Martin Rhonheimer by Dr. Thomas Pink

A vigorous and extensive discussion on Vatican II, and the plausibility of interpreting its decrees as being in continuity with the teachings of the Magisterium of the pre-Vatican II era, has been carried out since the early part of this year in the pages of Sandro Magister's websites, Chiesa (with English translation) and Settimo Cielo (in Italian only). As Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP put it in the course of the discussion: "The heart of the debate is here. We all agree, in fact, that the doctrines already defined [by the dogmatic magisterium of the former Church] present in the conciliar texts are infallible. What is in discussion is if the doctrinal developments, the innovations of the Council, are also infallible."

The following are the articles in Chiesa that are part of this discussion, listed in chronological order:

1) High Up, Let Down by Pope Benedict. (April 8, 2011) -- Noted by Rorate Caeli. An article describing the disappointment of Roberto de Mattei, Brunero Gherardini and Enrico Maria Radaelli over the approach of Pope Benedict XVI towards Vatican II, and concluding with a defense of the hermeneutic of continuity written by Francesco Arzillo.

2) The Disappointed have Spoken. The Vatican Responds. (April 18, 2011) -- Noted by Rorate Caeli. -- Concerning the defenses of the "hermeneutic of continuity" written by Inos Biffi and Archbishop Agostino Marchetto in response to Gherardini and de Mattei (see the first item in this list of articles).

3) Who's Betraying Tradition. The Grand Dispute (April 28, 2011) -- Mainly concerning Fr. Martin Rhonheimer's essay in "Nova et Vetera" regarding religious liberty and the hermeneutic of reform.

4) The Church is Infallible. But Not Vatican II. (May 5, 2011) -- Containing / referring three articles: the first one by Roberto de Mattei regarding the element of rupture to be found in Vatican II, the second one by David Werling in response to Francesco Arzillo (see the first item in this list of articles), and the last one by Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP in response to Werling.

5) Benedict XVI "The Reformist". - The Prosecution Rests. (May 11, 2011) -- Where Massimo Introvigne responds to Roberto De Mattei and contends that Vatican II indeed represents "renewal in continuity", while Fr. Martin Rhonheimer returns to the fray and elaborates on "hermeneutic of reform."

6) Religious Freedom. Was the Church Also Right When It Condemned It? (May 26, 2011) -- Which publishes Fr. Basile Valuet's critique of Gherardini and de Mattei on one hand, and of Rhonheimer on the other, after reprinting part of the last-mentioned's Nova et Vetera article. Valuet's article is followed by a note about David Werling's response to Cavalcoli (see the fourth item in this list) and a long series of "postscripts" in Italian and French. (In sequence: separate responses to Valuet by Rhonheimer and Cavalcoli, followed by a response of Valuet to Cavalcoli and a second response by Cavalcoli to Valuet, then followed by a long note from Introvigne, and then one response each to Introvigne and Rhonheimer by Valuet.)

7) A "Disappointed Great" Breaks His Silence. With an Appeal to the Pope. (June 16, 2011) -- Noted by Rorate Caeli --Enrico Radaelli's memorable contribution to this discussion, an impassioned appeal to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to "restore the divine 'munus docendi' in its fullness.

8) Bologna Speaks: Tradition is Also Made of "Ruptures". (June 21, 2011). -- Where the historian Enrico Morini interprets Vatican II as a return to "what the Church had lost", in the process making some unexpected nods to Eastern Orthodox criticisms of Catholicism; followed by the responses of Cavalcoli, Rhonheimer and Arzillo to Morini.

Rorate is now posting the following intervention (especially submitted to our blog) in this still-open debate. This particular intervention is in response to Fr. Martin Rhonheimer's essay in Nova et Vetera, part of which can be found in the third item in the list of articles above. More than being a mere response, the following essay throws further light upon the Catholic doctrine and theology of religious liberty and coercion from Trent to Vatican II, especially in relation to the coercion of belief.

The author is Dr. Thomas Pink, Professor of Philosophy in King's College, London and author of various books. To the blogosphere, Dr. Pink is best known for his long introduction (Introduction and Part 1. Part 2.) to the statement of Bishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller (the Roman Catholic bishop of Regensburg) on the Church's Confession of Christ in Jewish-Christian Dialogue (Part 1, Part 2). The latter statement -- and Dr. Pink's commentary on it -- were called forth by the controversy over the reformulation of the Good Friday Oratio pro conversione Iudæorum in the Missal of 1962.

Rhonheimer on religious liberty

On The 'hermeneutic of reform' and religious liberty in Nova et Vetera

Thomas Pink

Martin Rhonheimer sees doctrinal reform, not doctrinal continuity, in Vatican II's declaration on religious liberty. According to his Nova et Vetera paper, Dignitatis humanae is a genuine revision of earlier doctrine. The pre-conciliar magisterium endorsed religious coercion, calling for state restriction of the public practice of false religions. Now, by asserting religious liberty as not only a natural but a state or civil right, Dignitatis humanae has contradicted previous Church doctrine.

Rhonheimer denies, however, that the Church's previous endorsement of religious coercion was a doctrine of the faith. In particular, in a crucial appendix to his paper, he asserts, regarding various levels of magisterial dogmatic teaching:

"The first case - definition ex cathedra or by an ecumenical council - has clearly nothing to do with the question of religious liberty. In effect, the first and to this day only council to express itself on this subject has been Vatican Council II."

The pre-conciliar teaching was merely social doctrine, about the nature and role of the state. And the endorsement by pre-conciliar popes of religious coercion was based on a mistake. To defend what really is of the faith - the unique truth of Catholicism against other religions - the popes thought they had to assert the state's duty to repress religious error. But they were wrong. Indifferentism is the real enemy, not religious liberty itself. The mistake corrected, Vatican II can still teach the unique truth of the Catholic religion, while finally espousing religious liberty.

A "renewed anthropological foundation to religious freedom"

From the message of Pope Benedict XVI to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, released today, on the occasion of its plenary meeting:

Deeply inscribed in our human nature are a yearning for truth and meaning and an openness to the transcendent; we are prompted by our nature to pursue questions of the greatest importance to our existence. Many centuries ago, Tertullian coined the term libertas religionis (cf. Apologeticum, 24:6). He emphasized that God must be worshipped freely, and that it is in the nature of religion not to admit coercion, "nec religionis est cogere religionem" (Ad Scapulam, 2:2). Since man enjoys the capacity for a free personal choice in truth, and since God expects of man a free response to his call, the right to religious freedom should be viewed as innate to the fundamental dignity of every human person, in keeping with the innate openness of the human heart to God. In fact, authentic freedom of religion will permit the human person to attain fulfilment and will thus contribute to the common good of society.

Aware of the developments in culture and society, the Second Vatican Council proposed a renewed anthropological foundation to religious freedom. The Council Fathers stated that all people are "impelled by nature and also bound by our moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth" (Dignitatis Humanae, 2). The truth sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32), and it is this same truth that must be sought and assumed freely. The Council was careful to clarify that this freedom is a right which each person enjoys naturally and which therefore ought also to be protected and fostered by civil law.

Of course, every state has a sovereign right to promulgate its own legislation and will express different attitudes to religion in law. So it is that there are some states which allow broad religious freedom in our understanding of the term, while others restrict it for a variety of reasons, including mistrust for religion itself. The Holy See continues to appeal for the recognition of the fundamental human right to religious freedom on the part of all states, and calls on them to respect, and if need be protect, religious minorities who, though bound by a different faith from the majority around them, aspire to live with their fellow citizens [Rorate: notice caveats] peacefully and to participate fully in the civil and political life of the nation, to the benefit of all.

It should be noticed -as we had mentioned here only last week- that the Holy Father once again emphasizes, as he had done in his epoch-making Christmas Adress to the Curia, in December 2005, that the foundation for the conciliar position on Religious Freedom is anthropological - that is, its foundation is essentially non theological. It is pragmatic and practical, a response to what in French would be termed "les contingences du moment", the contingencies of the moment ("aware of the developments in culture and society") - and perfectly compatible with the Traditional doctrine of the Church, in order to protect true liberty of worship (see Libertas, 30, including a "moral obligation to seek the truth") and the full liberty of action of the Church.

Dignitatis Humanae: religious liberty and continuity

Sandro Magister has a post in Chiesa today (on Traditionalists, following a January post on the "Dossettians"), on the matter of Dignitatis Humanae and the concept of religious liberty as proposed by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council in that declaration. The basis of his articles is the Pope's epoch-making "Hermeneutics of Continuity" speech of December 2005.

As we mentioned in January 2006, in those days when we were the first English-speaking venue to discuss that address, and though Magister overlooks it in what could perhaps be considered a deliberate oversight, it is not very relevant to discuss the deeper theological aspects of Dignitatis Humanae as mentioned in the "Hermeneutics of Continuity" address because the Holy Father, in his address, made it clear that the notion of religious freedom as discussed in the Council was simply not a primarily theological proposition - it was a pragmatic solution for a practical consideration of the age (... hac nostra aetate...). Which is why it should not be incompatible with the specifically theological aspects of the matter as presented in earlier documents. [Image: repository.]