Author Topic: Francis says "Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right" (Read 1893 times)

Geremia · « **on:** May 24, 2014, 10:27:23 PM »

…and Pope Gregory XVI condemned that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right."

Quote from: Francis' Address to Jordanian Civil and Political Leaders

Here below is the English translation of the Pope’s discourse to the Jordanian authorities at the Royal Palace:

***

Your Majesties,

Your Excellencies,

Dear Brother Bishops,

Dear Friends,

I thank God for granting me this opportunity to visit the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the footsteps of my predecessors Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I am grateful to His Majesty King Abdullah II for his warm words of welcome, as I recall with pleasure our recent meeting in the Vatican. I also greet the members of the Royal Family, the government and the people of Jordan, this land so rich in history and with such great religious significance for Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Jordan has offered a generous welcome to great numbers of Palestinian and Iraqi refugees, as well as to other refugees from troubled areas, particularly neighboring Syria, ravaged by a conflict which has lasted all too long. Such generosity merits the appreciation and support of the international community. The Catholic Church, to the extent of its abilities, has sought to provide assistance to refugees and those in need, especially through Caritas Jordan.

While acknowledging with deep regret the continuing grave tensions in the Middle East, I thank the authorities of the Kingdom for all that they are doing and I encourage them to persevere in their efforts to seek lasting peace for the entire region. This great goal urgently requires that a peaceful solution be found to the crisis in Syria, as well as a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I take this opportunity to reiterate my profound respect and esteem for the Muslim community and my appreciation for the leadership of His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues taught by Islam and a climate of serene coexistence between the faithful of the different religions. I am grateful that Jordan has supported a number of important initiatives aimed at advancing interreligious dialogue and understanding between Jєωs, Christians and Muslims. I think in particular of the Amman Message and the support given within the United Nations Organization to the annual celebration of World Interfaith Harmony Week.

I would also like to offer an affectionate greeting to the Christian communities present in this country since apostolic times, contributing to the common good of the society of which they are fully a part. Although Christians today are numerically a minority, theirs is a significant and valued presence in the fields of education and health care, thanks to their schools and hospitals. They are able to profess their faith peaceably, in a climate of respect for religious freedom. Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right and I cannot fail to express my hope that it will be upheld throughout the Middle East and the entire world. The right to religious freedom “includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship… [it also includes] the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public” (Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, 26). Christians consider themselves, and indeed are, full citizens, and as such they seek, together with their Muslim fellow citizens, to make their own particular contribution to the society in which they live.

Finally, I cordially invoke peace and prosperity upon the Kingdom of Jordan and its people. I pray that my visit will help to advance and strengthen good and cordial relations between Christians and Muslims.

I thank you for your courteous welcome. May the Almighty and Merciful God grant happiness and long life to Your Majesties, and may he bless Jordan abundantly. Salaam!

(source)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2014, 02:49:02 AM »

.

It seems to me this thread belongs in another forum. What does it have to do with the SSPX Resistance? Unless it's another reason that +F is barking up the wrong tree with his agenda for 'normalization' with these Modernists.

In Los Angeles for some 30 years, we had a chief of police named Daryl Gates, who proudly went by the nickname "The Chief." One of his boasts was the development of the SWAT team (Special Weapons And Tactics), which has now spread nationwide. Another was the DARE program (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), which a Freemason proudly explained to me, had used a Freemasonic slogan from some 30 years prior, "Just say NO to drugs."

One of The Chief's quips was when someone asked him about how often he seemed to make headlines in the news, he would reply, that, Yes, I seem to be able to accomplish that, don't I? Notice they weren't complimenting him on producing any viable message that would be good for the city, in fact, it was all too often of no substance but merely sensationalism and shock value.

Roger Cardinal Mahony took a lesson from The Chief. He too enjoyed getting his face on the front page of the L.A.Times and other newspapers (like The Tidings). This was before the Internet. All too often the substance of the news wasn't at all edifying, but was merely sensational, and did the Church no good.

Has Pope Francis taken a lesson from Cardfile Balony --- woops, I mean Cardinal Mahony?

Of what enduring value is it for a pope to say something that conflicts with defined dogma?

One has to wonder if he's warming up to more heinous statements like the Real Presence is just symbolic, or when it comes to the Immaculate Conception it depends on what you mean by 'immaculate', or Reconciliation is there to help you feel better and you shouldn't worry about absolution. Yes, that's wild speculation, but tell me, a year ago could any of us have anticipated the litany of nonsense that has emerged since, AS IF ON A SCHEDULE?

Nonetheless, it is our place to do penance, to pray for the Pope, and to persevere until the end, such that we may be saved.

God does not expect anything of us that His grace will not give us the strength to endure, for with God, all things are possible.

.

McFiggly · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2014, 03:33:26 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Nonetheless, it is our place to do penance, to pray for the Pope, and to persevere until the end, such that we may be saved.

I'm not sure Neil, I think your prayers would be better spent on those good-willed Catholics that are looking to Francis for guidance than on Francis himself, who seems to be a committed antichrist whom not even an exorcist could benefit.

I just can't see any of the Saints being this soft on Francis. From the few examples I know of they weren't at all soft with suspected anti-popes, ones that were far, far better leaders of the Church than this man is, even. Every time I read about Francis my lukewarm sedevacantism becomes a little bit hotter. Did you hear about the Pope whose corpse they exhumed, dressed him in papal garments, excommunicated him, removed his garments and then through in the river Tiber; all because he was just a little bit soft on the heresies of that day? Don't you think that sets an example for us? This Francis is one of the most evil people to ever have lived; you can pray for him for God's sake and for the sake of Catholics, but the man doesn't deserve prayer, he deserves to be thrown on the Tiber.

See, one of the effects of the R&R position seems to me that it fosters a kind of lukewarmness when it comes to denouncing these "Popes", as much as sedevacantism may well foster overzealousness (though I don't know how you can be overzealous when pointing out that there's a dragon around swallowing up souls by the billion). Even if we think that by some technicality in Canon Law this Judas somehow retains his office, we ought all to agree that our voice against him ought to be much louder. We at least ought to appear in the News once as month as "those dangerous, fanatic Catholics of the Mel Gibson variety, suspect of terrorism", you know?

s2srea · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2014, 12:38:44 PM »

Quote from: McFiggly

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Nonetheless, it is our place to do penance, to pray for the Pope, and to persevere until the end, such that we may be saved.

I'm not sure Neil, I think your prayers would be better spent on those good-willed Catholics that are looking to Francis for guidance than on Francis himself, who seems to be a committed antichrist whom not even an exorcist could benefit.

A disgusting uncharitable attitude.

Quote

I just can't see any of the Saints being this soft on Francis. From the few examples I know of they weren't at all soft with suspected anti-popes, ones that were far, far better leaders of the Church than this man is, even. Every time I read about Francis my lukewarm sedevacantism becomes a little bit hotter. Did you hear about the Pope whose corpse they exhumed, dressed him in papal garments, excommunicated him, removed his garments and then through in the river Tiber; all because he was just a little bit soft on the heresies of that day?

Did you read the rest of the story? The next pope later found him, and re-buried him, properly, lifting his dignity once more.

Quote

but the man doesn't deserve prayer, he deserves to be thrown on the Tiber.

Francis may be pope, or may not be pope. But everyone deserves prayer. I don't know what saint's you've read about, or what church they'd belonged to. But the Saints of the Roman Catholic Church have always led by example in praying for their enemies.

Jehanne · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2014, 01:15:09 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right...

It's a natural right, which is why Saint Thomas taught that it would be an injustice to baptize infants against the will of their parents:

Quote

I answer that, the children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized. If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients “were saved through the faith of their parents.” Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents’ will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circuмstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents’ will. (ST III, q.68, a.10)

In this sense, religious freedom is a natural right, not a moral right.

crossbro · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2014, 01:53:58 PM »

Does God say that religious freedom is a fundamental right ?

If religious freedom is a fundamental human right then Jesus, according to Pope Francis, needs to be charged with human rights violations.

No serious Catholic speaks about rights, they speak about responsibilities.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #6 on:** May 25, 2014, 02:43:43 PM »

Quote from: crossbro

Does God say that religious freedom is a fundamental right ?

These previous comments that attempted to assert that religious freedom is a natural right are completely off track. Religious freedom is against divine law. To assert that the conscious has the right to decide which religion is fitting to him is grave error. Whether the conscious agrees with or dislikes the Divine Religion revealed by Christ Himself, he must accept it. Religious freedom goes against the First Commandment. This is basic catechism.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #7 on:** May 25, 2014, 02:48:13 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Geremia
Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right...

It's a natural right, which is why Saint Thomas taught that it would be an injustice to baptize infants against the will of their parents:

Quote
I answer that, the children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized. If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients “were saved through the faith of their parents.” Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents’ will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circuмstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents’ will. (ST III, q.68, a.10)

In this sense, religious freedom is a natural right, not a moral right.

This is a complete distortion of Thomism. Baptizing infants is a Sacrament and is done with the consent of the parents for the intentions that the children are raised Catholics. THAT is why priests don't baptize the children of people living together and not married!

Religious freedom is against Divine Law, namely the First Commandment and never should be confused as you have put it here.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #8 on:** May 25, 2014, 03:49:14 PM »

I did not listen to the Pope's speech, but if what he said was that the Church teaches religious liberty in countries in which the Church has a minority position, he would be correct.

Where Catholics have the ability, the state is to be a confessional (i.e., Catholic) state.

In countries where there is a sizable or intense heretical minority, the Church may choose to tolerate certain religious acts of the various sects.

In countries where the Church is persecuted (i.e., a confessional state is not within her power), she requests religious liberty to profess the one true religion.

Therefore...

1) If the Pope was demanding freedom for the Church in Muslim-dominated Jordan, it was a solid Catholic act.

2) If on the other hand, he was merely regurgitating the same heretical slop from Dignitatis Humanae about an alleged natural right to profess error, well, what else is new?

songbird · « **Reply #9 on:** May 25, 2014, 04:22:58 PM »

A young man told me that when Jesus Christ came, he "just" suggested the catholic church. This was a traditional altar server age 19. I told him, "just"? Christ just COMMANDED the disciples to spread the truth.

Jehanne · « **Reply #10 on:** May 25, 2014, 04:32:12 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

This is a complete distortion of Thomism. Baptizing infants is a Sacrament and is done with the consent of the parents for the intentions that the children are raised Catholics. THAT is why priests don't baptize the children of people living together and not married!

Religious freedom is against Divine Law, namely the First Commandment and never should be confused as you have put it here.

Saint Thomas is a little more clear in this section:

Quote

On the contrary, Injustice should be done to no man. Now it would be an injustice to Jєωs if their children were to be baptized against their will, since they would lose the rights of parental authority over their children as soon as these were Christians. Therefore these should not be baptized against their parents’ will. I answer that, the custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever. Now it was never the custom of the Church to baptize the children of the Jєωs against the will of their parents, although at times past there have been many very powerful catholic princes like Constantine and Theodosius, with whom most holy bishops have been on most friendly terms, as Sylvester with Constantine, and Ambrose with Theodosius, who would certainly not have failed to obtain this favor from them if it had been at all reasonable. It seems therefore hazardous to repeat this assertion, that the children of Jєωs should be baptized against their parents’ wishes, in contradiction to the Church’s custom observed hitherto. There are two reasons for this custom. One is on account of the danger to the faith. For children baptized before coming to the use of reason, afterwards when they come to perfect age, might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced; and this would be detrimental to the faith. The other reason is that it is against natural justice. For a child is by nature part of its father: thus, at first, it is not distinct from its parents as to its body, so long as it is enfolded within its mother’s womb; and later on after birth, and before it has the use of its free-will, it is enfolded in the care of its parents, which is like a spiritual womb, for so long as man has not the use of reason, he differs not from an irrational animal; so that even as an ox or a horse belongs to someone who, according to the civil law, can use them when he likes, as his own instrument, so, according to the natural law, a son, before coming to the use of reason, is under his father’s care. Hence it would be contrary to natural justice, if a child, before coming to the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parents’ custody, or anything done to it against its parents’ wish. As soon, however, as it begins to have the use of its free-will, it begins to belong to itself, and is able to look after itself, in matters concerning the Divine or the natural law, and then it should be induced, not by compulsion but by persuasion, to embrace the faith: it can then consent to the faith, and be baptized, even against its parents’ wish; but not before it comes to the use of reason. Hence it is said of the children of the fathers of old that they were saved in the faith of their parents; whereby we are given to understand that it is the parents’ duty to look afer the salvation of their children, especially before they come to the use of reason. (ST IIa IIae, q.10, a.12)

Geremia · « **Reply #11 on:** May 25, 2014, 07:36:47 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: Geremia
Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right...

It's a natural right, which is why Saint Thomas taught that it would be an injustice to baptize infants against the will of their parents:

Quote
I answer that, the children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized. If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients “were saved through the faith of their parents.” Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents’ will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circuмstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents’ will. (ST III, q.68, a.10)

In this sense, religious freedom is a natural right, not a moral right.

That's toleration. The Church has never taught that people have a fundamental human right to practicing false religions even publicly.

Bl. Pope Pius IX condemned what Pope Gregory XVI thought was "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; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." in his infallible encyclical Quanta Cura.

Pope Gregory XVI is 100% correct in calling it an "insanity" because this false religious freedom, which is really the "freedom" to believe and publicly spread error, protects even the 9/11 bombers!

2Vermont · « **Reply #12 on:** May 26, 2014, 07:12:22 AM »

Oh and here's repetition of another old diddy:

I take this opportunity to reiterate my profound respect and esteem for the Muslim community and my appreciation for the leadership of His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues taught by Islam

Jehanne · « **Reply #13 on:** May 26, 2014, 12:22:04 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Jehanne
Quote from: Geremia
Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right...

It's a natural right, which is why Saint Thomas taught that it would be an injustice to baptize infants against the will of their parents:

Quote
I answer that, the children of unbelievers either have the use of reason or they have not. If they have, then they already begin to control their own actions, in things that are of Divine or natural law. And therefore of their own accord, and against the will of their parents, they can receive Baptism, just as they can contract marriage. Consequently such can lawfully be advised and persuaded to be baptized. If, however, they have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients “were saved through the faith of their parents.” Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents’ will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circuмstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents’ will. (ST III, q.68, a.10)

In this sense, religious freedom is a natural right, not a moral right.
That's toleration. The Church has never taught that people have a fundamental human right to practicing false religions even publicly.

Bl. Pope Pius IX condemned what Pope Gregory XVI thought was "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; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." in his infallible encyclical Quanta Cura.

Pope Gregory XVI is 100% correct in calling it an "insanity" because this false religious freedom, which is really the "freedom" to believe and publicly spread error, protects even the 9/11 bombers!

Even the present Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Pope Francis has praised, does not teach an absolute freedom of religion:

Quote

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner. The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."