I failed to say the Rosary today. Yet another black mark.
SJB, are you trying to favorably contrast Pius XII with Dignitatis Humanae? I'm aware that there are many orthodox passages in his writings. That is why I call him two-faced and double-minded, as I know you've noticed. Remember that "Pius X stuff" about the Modernist mixing the part of the rationalist and Catholic, so that at one moment he is orthodox and the next he is insinuating error? Please absorb it and take it to heart rather than constantly chafing at me.
The passage you cite is indeed orthodox, even beautiful, as some of his passages are when taken out of context. No doubt Pius XII was of rare intelligence, which he used for evil.
Pius XII said:First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.
The question is, what does Pius XII consider to be the truth and the norm of morality? His entire pontificate wove a web of approbation around the goals, then in the process of reaching full implementation, of the Jєωs and Masons. Occasionally he'd say something about how tyrants and exploiters are bad without describing who the tyrants and exploiters were. He used obfuscation.
Pius XII said:Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good."
That is almost written in the sense of Leo XIII's Libertas, as the Church must adapt to changing times and circuмstances. I'm not sure about the phrase "higher and more general good," though. The Church tolerates separation of Church and state so that its members can live and work in America, for instance. It is a "good" that they can worship instead of being oppressed. But this is not a "higher" good. It's a lower good.
Freedom of religion is a lower good than the temporal control of the Church over the state, but a higher one than outright oppression.
Pius XII also said:"62. The decisions already published by international commissions permit one to conclude that an essential point in any future international arrangement would be the formation of an organ for the maintenance of peace, of an organ invested by common consent with supreme power to whose office it would also pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression.
"
Do you think this is a Catholic "international arrangement" he's calling for, SJB? Do you think it's orthodox to call for a non-Catholic body to "smother" any resistance, such as, oh I dunno, a CATHOLIC resistance to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr? Pius XII's encyclicals are a mere welter of confusion, of yin and yang, of opposed principles, a sort of verbal white noise, a Rohrschach blot just like the encyclicals of his VII inheritors.