On Monday there was a priest on the radio show "Catholic Answers" who discussed the topic of:  can doctrine evolve.   When he was asked about religious liberty, he said that the teaching on religious liberty presented by VII did not contradict previous teaching because before VII, the emphasis was on the objective, and post VII, the emphasis is now on the subjective.

Does anyone here know if this is correct?  It sounded good to me, but as Caminus will tell you, what do I know.   :wink:

Last night I was reading in my Liturgical Year for the feast of St. Peter Verona what you just wrote Belloc.  Error has no rights and cannot be on equal footing with Truth.

Read Mortalium animos by Pius XI -- it annihilates "ecuмenism" decades before V2 brought it forth as the best thing since sliced matza balls :)

It is your task here to proclaim the basic rights and duties of man, his dignity and liberty, and above all his religious liberty. We are conscious that you are the interpreters of all that is paramount in human wisdom. We would almost say: of its sacred character. For your concern is first and foremost with the life of man, and man's life is sacred: no-one may dare to interfere with it.

HeL-Lo-O, McSatan!!  

It's cute and pithy, but what does he mean by "focusing on the subjective"?

Caminus, go listen to it if you can.  It is the show from April 26, the first hour (Fr. Sebastian Walshe).  He discusses it in the first fifteen/twenty minutes or so before anyone called in.  It is the host of the show that asked him about it.  

Last night I was reading in my Liturgical Year for the feast of St. Peter Verona what you just wrote Belloc.  Error has no rights and cannot be on equal footing with Truth.

If you have high speed internet and are able to listen to things, listen to the first fifteen minutes or so of the show and tell me what you think about what he said.  I may not be explaining it right.

By the way, Belloc, I'm impressed.  You have no ignores.

thank, yes I do not

True, evil has no rights, but even ABL noted at times that error could not be rooted out right away.example, a nations regains its sense snad becomes a Catholic state, yet a few Prots remain and are married to Catholics.Do you break up a family? No, the Prot stays, but their worship can be curtailed, for instance, they are not allowed to hand out Jack Chick tracts,etc. Eventually, they will either move on their own or die out, their chidren-if they have any-will hopefully become or remain Catholic.

I think the term ABL and others used was pragmatic tolerance. Disruption to society could be more dangerous then allowing wayard folks. After Rome became Catholic, pagans were not systemtically all killed or exiled, but their activities were proscribed and restricted greatly....Eventually, they died out or left, by and large.

Do you have a link to the talk? may not be able to listen here at work, likely can at home....

Quote from: Caminus

It's cute and pithy, but what does he mean by "focusing on the subjective"?

Caminus, go listen to it if you can.  It is the show from April 26, the first hour (Fr. Sebastian Walshe).  He discusses it in the first fifteen/twenty minutes or so before anyone called in.  It is the host of the show that asked him about it.  

What he doesn't seem to understand is that doctrine cannot pertain to subjectivist concerns, all law, all doctrine pertains to objective truth.  That's part of the problem with DH: it is subjectivist.  

There's a major distinction involved in this discussion.  The external vs. internal forum.  The State and the Church can only judge matters in the external forum, according to objective rules and measures.  In this case it is the truth of religion.  To force the matter into the subjective, internal forum, which is the arena of intention and conscience, is to devastate the formal object of doctrine.

In other words, to consider what people feel and subjectively think about their own religion as a norm of law is to deny objective truth and the revelation of God Himself.  A Catholic state doesn't consider subjective feelings, but must consider among other things what really pertains to the common good of their respective society, which is an objective rule.  The only objective element in DH is the consideration of public order which is essentially a matter of the security of the State.  But there was never any liberal catholic who would have been so insane as to admit a religious liberty which would subvert the security of the State itself.  Thus, for DH's defenders to refer to this criteria is immaterial.      

Thus, this is not a development of doctrine but a very deep perversion which paralyzes the mind and ends by negating the divine order of creation.  For this priest to praise the subjectivity of the Council is to betray a mind utterly lost and detached from reality.