I realize this has been discussed before, but I want to take another pass at it, since I see our present situation with less emotional investment now.  I am not one of those who base their opposition to VII entirely on the question of religious liberty, so for me this is purely a formal question -- but is Dignitatis Humanae really heretical?

For religious liberty as taught by Vatican II in Dignitatis Humanae to be a heresy, it would have to contradict divine revelation which can be traced back to the Apostles.  Does it do so?  What I know is that it definitely contradicts recent papal pronouncements:

Quanta Cura, Pius IX:

"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of 'naturalism,' as they call it, dare to teach that 'the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.' And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that 'that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.'  From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society;..."

This is specifically contrary to DH, it is like DH simply reversed everything that Pius IX said.  And Leo XIII is even more specific.  In the following passage he compares the "modern form of government," meaning governments that separate Church and state, with tyrannical governments.  Relatively to tyrannical governments, these modern governments are better, but they still must not be approved in principle.

Immortale Dei, Leo XIII:

42. Especially with reference to the so-called "liberties" which are so greatly coveted in these days, all must stand by the judgment of the apostolic see, and have the same mind. Let no man be deceived by the honest outward appearance of these liberties, but let each one reflect whence these have had their origin, and by what efforts they are everywhere upheld and promoted. Experience has made Us well acquainted with their results to the State, since everywhere they have borne fruits which the good and wise bitterly deplore. If there really exist anywhere, or if we in imagination conceive, a State, waging wanton and tyrannical war against Christianity, and if we compare with it the modern form of government just described, this latter may seem the more endurable of the two. Yet, undoubtedly, the principles on which such a government is grounded are, as We have said, of a nature which no one can approve.

There is no doubt that Dignitatis Humanae marches right in and wholeheartedly embraces precisely the errors pointed out by these Popes.  It actually goes farther.  It doesn't just say that religious liberty ought to be proclaimed, and that religion should have no power of coercion.  It proclaims it itself, imposing itself on governments, even on Catholic ones.

I wonder, though, is what Pius IX and Leo XIII talked about part of the Deposit of Faith?  Can it be traced back to the Apostles?  And which concepts can be traced back to the Apostles?  Is it that we must wish for all governments to be Catholic, even when they aren't?  Is it that we must say that the government should punish those who offend against Catholicism?  Obviously that can't be traced back to the Apostles, since they knew nothing of Catholic governments.  

This leaves me to ask, is it possible that this matter of religious liberty is a discipline and not a dogma of faith?  Keep in mind that at the First Lateran Council, marriages between people with a certain degree of consanguinity were strictly forbidden.  Then at the Fourth Lateran Council, this was reversed and these marriages were allowed.  This shows you how flexible disciplines can be.  It is a flip-flop that is precisely like the flip-flop involving religious liberty.

If so, if religious liberty is a discipline, we would have to prove religious liberty is a harmful discipline to convict the "Popes" on the basis of it alone, but that is difficult.  VII types could easily use as a defense that, since the governments of today are not Catholic, that Dignitatis Humanae was actually put in place to safeguard the Catholics from persecution, that the Church is enforcing religious liberty because she fears the advent of the tyrannical, atheistic governments that Leo XIII suggests.

Of course, this is ridiculous in itself.  A tyrannical, atheistic government is not going to listen to what Vatican II has to say, it's not going to protect Catholics or be cowed by the edicts of Rome.  Therefore, there is neither any theological nor any moral nor any disciplinary nor any strategic reason to do what Vatican II did.  There is no reason why it shouldn't have followed in the footsteps of Leo XIII and said, in effect, "Yeah, modern governments are bad, and we don't and must not approve of them in principle, but they are a necessary evil that for the time we must endure."  

We also know, because of so much other evidence, that the Church has been infiltrated and that many of these people are Modernists.  We know there is an effort underway to destroy the Church.  I am not saying, believe me, that Paul VI was secretly a good guy who was trying to shield Catholics from persecution.  The evidence shows, in my opinion, that he was a communist who was trying to make the Church blend with the world, to fritter away its evangelical action, to weaken the faith, to work with the devil to create the Apostasy.

But just because DH is ridiculous, doesn't mean it's heretical.  I tend to think that the Catholic Church can't be ridiculous, call me crazy, but this thread is devoted to the question "Is Dignitatis Humanae HERETICAL"?
Keep in mind I'm judging DH as it is in itself, I'm talking about what's on the page.  We all know about Assisi and the heresies of Ratzinger and that these "Popes" are not orthodox people, but don't let that color any objective insights into DH that you can give me.

Last time we discussed DH on this forum, we determined that the heresy was not religious liberty in itself, but that people have the "natural right" to religious liberty.  They are taking their cue from Gregory XVI as quoted by Pius IX above, when he says it is "insanity" that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society."  He calls it "insanity," just like I have called DH ridiculous, and that is what it is.  But what is the "insanity" in question?  What is the "right" in question?  Is it that no one has the natural right to error, or is it that no one should have the evil consequences of their errors protected by the law?  It's a fine distinction, but a necessary one.

I am no longer sure it's a heresy to say we have the right to error.  Natural rights come from divine laws.  And it is a divine law that we have free will -- no?  This would imply we have divine sanction to err, just as we know there must be reprobate and elect.  Yet on the other hand, no one has the "right" to error when it concerns a just government; error is only tolerated in certain cases.  

It all depends what is meant by a right, or what the word for "right" is in Latin, but it seems to me that DH is much too ambiguous and shady to be convicted for clear, outright heresy, unless someone can give me some proof from the Church Fathers.  It is a true brain-scrambler.  I only scratched the surface of the questions and problems that it raises.  What I do know, however, is that it is insane and absurd, that it is just wrong -- can the Church be insane and absurd and wrong?  Don't think so.  And we have other heresies and errors to let us know what we're dealing with.

Counter-Catholic is a good word for it, that is essentially what I'm saying when I call it "ridiculous."

CORRECTION of my clumsy third-to-last paragraph, please read the emphasized portion especially.  

Last time we discussed DH on this forum, we determined that the heresy was not religious liberty in itself, but that people have the "natural right" to religious liberty.  Those who claim this is heresy are taking their cue from Gregory XVI as quoted by Pius IX above, when he says it is "insanity" that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society."  He calls it "insanity," just like I have called DH ridiculous, and that is what it is.  But what is the "insanity" in question?  Is it that we have the natural right to error, or is it that we should have the evil consequences of our errors protected by the law?  It's a fine distinction, but a necessary one.

Belloc said:

I ignore V2 by and large...someday, we may have it only as a bad memory.....

We can't ignore it, because we need to know if what sits in Rome is the Church or not.  If it is, the VII docuмents have to be free from error, let alone heresy.  

heresy can at times be tolerated, if suppression may harm the common good...it is pragmatic toleration...the Syllabus is statements of dogmatic fact, basd on various sources-in a sense, an abriged summary of dogmatic teaching, maybe akin to Cliff notes....

one would-and maybe someone has-go through each proposition and go into detail of the background teaching.....

religious liberty is mis-understand, most would read DH and say "yes, we cannot force belief or worship"-which is true, but a Catholic state can regulate it or not, again, common good and pragmtism at times may allow certain things....sometimes, as in Louis IX, not-as he forced the Jєωs out of France.....their destruction and threat of the Faith was greater than the harm of allowing them to stay.....

with DH, one really has to define terms, DH does not and leaves a lot of ambigouity that is open to twisting....

This is my understanding of the docuмent which I recently read along with the copious footnotes.  Without asking, I know that I will be corrected if I am wrong.

Dignitatis Humanae doesn't really say that errors has rights.  What it says is that if you firmly believe you are right, you have the right not be coerced to go against your conscience.  It's not so much that you have the right to be wrong as it is that you have the right not be brow-beaten into changing your mind.

The problem I have with the docuмent is that it is the brainchild of John Courtney Murray, S.J. who was teaching this to various religious orders of nuns already in the 1940s.  What it did was extend the United States' version of religious freedom throughout the Church.

 :rahrah:

I get the feeling you didn't actually read my post and you are just talking about DH in general.  But I bring up some questions I think are pertinent, and I want answers, dang it.  I will wait and be patient.

You will get as varied answers as there are people here.  I know.  When I speak to one side, I get their version of things; and when I speak to the other, I get the other side.   The question really is:  who is giving you the truth and who is giving you a slanted version of the truth?   I've never been able to happen upon anyone that is objective.  It's either that the docuмent is heretical or that the docuмent isn't.

I want answers too.  

I want the various insights so that I can sift and determine on the one that has the most proof in its corner.  But again, there is more against VII and post-VII Rome than just religious liberty, as I wrote you at length last night.

[/b]


Did you get my response, as I am having major computer troubles today on account of the fact that my husband "fixed" it this morning?