No, it's not compatible with Traditional Catholic dogma. Vatican II's definition of religious freedom is a heresy, that one can worship God any way he or she so chooses. That's like what the Protestants believe. You cannot worship God any way you want. This statement from Benedict is a load of garbage.

The last line of his statement also appears to be saying that a person can choose any political path they want. That's not correct. If a politician becomes enrooted in liberalism and supports abortion and/or gαy marriage, they are in sin. This is why Nancy Palosi, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid have automatically excommunicated themselves from the Church, you cannot be Catholic and support this evil junk!

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/05/renewed-anthropological-foundation-to.html

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:

Quote

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. Apologeticuм, 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 "Hermeneutics of Continuity" Adress, in December 2005, that the foundation for the conciliar position on Religious Freedom is anthropological - that is, its foundation is essentially not 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

He chooses to look at it as a mere historical provision in order to square it with traditional doctrine, but he is at variance with both the docuмent itself, the post-conciliar interpretation of it as well as the immediate text for they all claim that religious liberty rests not on mere historical provision, not as a matter of prudence in toleration of an unfortunate evil, but rather upon an immutable anthropological foundation (they cannot rest the new principle upon God for they would certainly betray themselves).  The notion that religious liberty is justified on the basis of a "search for truth" has been refuted as pure sophistry by traditional theologians based in part on the obvious reason that an individual searching for truth is a fundamentally different notion than the public practice of a false religion, which is objectively an intrinsic evil.  

Thus there isn't a "continuity" as a matter of mere prudence because they postulate this doctrine as a theoretical matter (an interpretive "continuity" concerning the realm of prudential judgment is philosophically absurd) and thus at the level of principle, the contradiction is manifest.      

Religious freedom is indifference to the damnation of souls. It is heresy. Outside the church their is no salvation.

Quote

Council of Florence SESSION 11 4 February 1442

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

You've got the right idea!  

Most Neo-Caths have no clue religious liberty is a novelty in Catholic teaching. They think it is as naturally Catholic as the rosary. I remember Neo-Caths having a rountable about Abp. Chaput's praising it.

They may as well set up a golden calf with religious liberty inscribed and worship it. Clueless idiots.