In His Excellency's now famous CNS interview, Bishop Fellay explained that Religious Liberty is used in different senses. One of these senses is clearly false; while another is not. The interview below: Bp. Fellay said, "Religious Liberty is used in so many different senses and looking closer I really have the impression that not many knows what the Council really says about it. The Council is presenting a Religious Liberty that is a very, very limited one. Very Limited! ... many people have an interpretation of the Council that is a wrong interpretation, and now you have the authorities in Rome who say it ..." etc



For discussion, 

In the Encyclical Libertas, Pope Leo XIII seems to distinguish true and false liberty of conscience: "Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong - a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear. This is the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves with intrepid constancy, which the apologists of Christianity confirmed by their writings, and which the martyrs in vast numbers consecrated by their blood. And deservedly so; for this Christian liberty bears witness to the absolute and most just dominion of God over man, and to the chief and supreme duty of man toward God. It has nothing in common with a seditious and rebellious mind; and in no title derogates from obedience to public authority; for the right to command and to require obedience exists only so far as it is in accordance with the authority of God, and is within the measure that He has laid down" (para 30)
 http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

Could this distinction be key in resolving the dispute over Vatican II's Religious Liberty? Vatican II had said, "It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth" which seems to speak of a similar consciousness of duty to be bound by known Truth. That in Para 2. And then in Para 3, "3. Further light is shed on the subject if one considers that the highest norm of human life is the divine law-eternal, objective and universal-whereby God orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever more fully the truth that is unchanging. Wherefore every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, under use of all suitable means." http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html