Dignitatis Humanae – Declaration on Religious liberty

Source: vaticancatholic.com

4.  Dignitatis Humanae – Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious liberty

Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty was without question the most notorious of all the documents of Vatican II.  In order to understand why Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is heretical one must understand the Catholic Church’s infallible teaching on the issue.

It’s a dogma of the Catholic Church that States have a right, and indeed a duty, to prevent the members of false religions from publicly propagating and practicing their false faiths.  States must do this to protect the common good – the good of souls – which is harmed by the public dissemination of evil.  This is why the Catholic Church has always taught that Catholicism should be the only religion of the State, and that the State should exclude and forbid the public profession and propagation of any other.

We will now look at three propositions that were condemned by Pope Pius IX in his authoritative Syllabus of Errors.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 77: “In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned.[62]

Notice, the idea that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of other religions, is condemned.  That means that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the State and that the others should be excluded from public worship, profession, practice and propagation.  The Catholic Church doesn’t force nonbelievers to believe in the Catholic Faith, since belief (by definition) is a free act of the will.

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (#36), Nov. 1, 1885: “And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’”[63]

However, it teaches that States should forbid the propagation and public profession of false religions which lead souls to Hell.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned.[64]

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55: “The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” – Condemned.[65]

In Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX also condemned the idea that every man should be granted the civil right to religious liberty.

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (# 3), Dec. 8, 1864: “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, NAMELY, 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…”[66]

But Vatican II teaches just the opposite:

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.  Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as to become a civil right.”[67]

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.”[68]

Vatican II teaches that religious liberty should be a civil right, which is directly condemned by Pope Pius IX.  Vatican II also says that this right to religious liberty applies to public, as well as private, expression; and that no one should be prevented from the public expression or practice of his religion.  The teaching of Vatican II is direct heresy against the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX and a host of other popes.  The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty could literally have been added to the errors of the Syllabus of Errors condemned by Pope Pius IX.

Benedict XVI admits that Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty contradicts the teaching of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX!

What’s amazing is that Benedict XVI admits what we just proved above!

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected..."[69]

Benedict XVI admits here that Vatican II’s teaching (which he adheres to) is directly contrary to the teaching of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.  In other words, he just admitted that Vatican II’s teaching is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium.  One could hardly ask for more of a confirmation that the teaching of Vatican II is heretical.  In his book, Benedict XVI repeats this again and again, calling the teaching of Vatican II “the countersyllabus,” and saying that there can be no return to the Syllabus of Errors!

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 385: "By a kind of inner necessity, therefore, the optimism of the countersyllabus gave way to a new cry that was far more intense and more dramatic than the former one."[70]

Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 391: " The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience.  That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage."[71]

Vatican II’s heresy is perhaps most clearly expressed in the next quote:

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens.  With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.”[72]

Vatican II says that the State exceeds its authority if it dares to prevent religious activity.  This is totally heretical.

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 21-23), June 20, 1888: “Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.  Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in the Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it… Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.”[73]

Here we see Pope Leo XIII (simply reiterating the consistent teaching of pope after pope) teaching that the State not only can, but should curtail and forbid the rights and privileges of other religions to perform religious acts – exactly the opposite of what Vatican II declared.  Such public acts, false opinions and false teachings should be repressed by public authority (the State), according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, so that souls are not scandalized or enticed by them.

The heresy of Vatican II on this issue is very clear, but there are always heretics who attempt to defend the indefensible.

Refuting attempted defenses of Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty

Some defenders of Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty argue that Vatican II simply taught that we shouldn’t coerce people to believe.

Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction, p. 277: “Notice the Declaration [on religious liberty] endorses not a general freedom to believe whatever you want, but rather, a freedom from being coerced into believing something.  In other words, no one is to be forced to submit to the Catholic Faith.”[74]

As we saw already, this is completely false.  Vatican II didn’t merely teach that the Catholic Church doesn’t force or coerce an unbeliever to be a Catholic.  Rather, Vatican II taught that States don’t have the right to put down the public expression and propagation and practice of false religions (because the civil right to religious liberty should be universally recognized).  Again, we must understand the distinction between the two different issues which the dishonest defenders of Vatican II sometimes attempt to conflate:  First issue) the Catholic Church doesn’t force or coerce a nonbeliever to believe, since belief is free – true;  Second issue) the State cannot repress the public expression of these false religions – this is where Vatican II contradicts the Catholic Church on religious liberty.  The second issue is the key.

To understand this better let’s give an example: If a State were presented, for instance, with Muslims and Jews holding their religious services and celebrations in a public place (even if they were not disturbing the peace or infringing on any private property or upsetting the public order at all), the State could and should (according to Catholic teaching) repress these services and celebrations and send the Jews and Muslims home (or would arrest them, if the law were well established) since they scandalize others and could cause others to join these false religions.  The State would tell them their obligation to be Catholic before God and try to convert them by directing them to the Catholic priests, but it wouldn’t force them to do so.  This is an example of the clear distinction between 1) forcing one to be Catholic, something the Church condemns, since belief is free and 2) the State’s right to repress false religious activity, something the Church teaches.

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, # 78: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned. [75]

But Vatican II teaches just the opposite.  The passage quoted below is the clearest heresy of Vatican II on religious liberty.  We quote it again because this passageis utterly indefensible and cuts through all attempted distortions, such as the distortion from Patrick Madrid above.

Vatican II Document, Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens.  With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.” [76]

Here Vatican II says that the State exceeds its authority if it dares to direct or prevent religious activity.  We just saw above that the Syllabus of errors condemned the idea that the State cannot prevent the activity of other religions.  This proves that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty was clearly false and heretical, and that Vatican II wasn’t merely teaching that one should not be coerced to become Catholic.

The “Within Due Limits” Subterfuge

Attempting to defend the heretical teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty by any means, the defenders of Vatican II will engage in tremendous distortions.  They will quote the passage below from Vatican II and distort its teaching in the hope that the passage can (being thus distorted) somehow conform to traditional teaching against religious liberty.  They assert that Vatican II didn’t allow unconditional freedom of public worship, but mentioned certain “limits.”

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.  Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom should have such recognition in the regulation of society as to become a civil right.”[77]

“See,” they say, “Vatican II taught that States could put limits on this religious expression; and this is in conformity with traditional teaching.”  This is such a dishonest argument, such a distortion of the text, that Catholics should be outraged by it.  In the passage above, while teaching that no one (no matter what his religion) can be prevented from expressing his religion publicly, Vatican II is simply covering all its bases and making sure that it doesn’t go on the record as allowing anarchy in the State.

Vatican II had to add the clause “within due limits” so that it didn’t go on the record endorsing, for instance, a religious group blocking traffic during rush hour or religious services being held in the middle of busy highways.  Thus, it taught that “no one… shall be prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits.”  Vatican II is not in any way saying that a Catholic State could curtail the right of religious liberty of non-Catholic citizens; Vatican II is still teaching undeniable heresy on religious liberty: that religious liberty should be a civil right and that no one shall be prevented by the State from acting according to his conscience in public; but it was simply indicating that due public order cannot be violated by those exercising this right.

To prove that this is the meaning – which, of course, is obvious to any honest assessor of this issue – we can simply quote the very same #2 in that Declaration:

Vatican II document, Dignitatis humanae # 2: “Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.”[78]

We can see that the “within due limits” phrase simply means “as long as due public order is preserved.”  Thus, according to Vatican II, every man has the right to religious liberty, including the public expression and practice of his religion, which the State cannot curtail as long as due public order is preserved.  This is heretical.  Vatican II did not conform to traditional teaching, no matter how hard heretics such as “Fr.” Brian Harrison dishonestly attempt to use this clause to argue such.  Vatican II taught that the State cannot prevent the public expression of false religions, as we see very clearly in this quote we’ve already discussed.

Vatican II Document, Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens.  With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.” [79]

There is no way at all to defend the indefensibly heretical teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty.

The “Religious Liberty teaching is not a dogma” Objection

In view of the clear contradiction between Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty and the traditional teaching, other defenders of the post-Vatican II apostasy have insisted that, despite the contradiction, the teaching of Vatican II doesn’t involve heresy because the traditional teaching on religious liberty was not infallibly taught as a dogma.

Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, pp. 24-25: “The [Sedevacantist] Enterprise asserts that there is a flat contradiction between DH [Vatican II’s document Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty] and the traditional teaching: DH affirms a natural right [sic] religious liberty in the public manifestations of false religions by members of non-Catholic sects, while the traditional teaching condemns this notion… But let’s assume for argument’s sake that a flat contradiction exists between DH [Dignitatis Humanae] and the prior teaching, and that this contradiction is manifest – i.e., no explanation is required to demonstrate it.  Even so, the contradiction would not involve manifest heresy as such, since the Church’s traditional teaching on the right and duty of the State to repress external violations of the Catholic religion is not a defined dogma of the Catholic Faith, nor is the teaching that there is no right as such publicly to manifest a false religion in Catholic states.”[80]

This is completely wrong, and easily refuted.  The idea taught by Vatican II, that every man should be granted the civil right to religious liberty, so that he is ensured by law the right to publicly practice and spread his false religion, was dogmatically, solemnly and infallibly condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura.  The language that Pius IX uses more than fulfills the requirements for a dogmatic definition.  Please note especially the bolded and underlined portions.

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “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, NAMELY, 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.’  But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition…  Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE SONS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”[81]

Pope Pius IX solemnly condemns, reprobates and proscribes (outlaws) this evil opinion by his apostolic authority, and solemnly declares that all the sons of the Catholic Church must hold this evil opinion as condemned.  This is solemn language and infallible teaching of the highest order.  There is no doubt that Quanta Cura constitutes a dogmatic condemnation of the idea that religious liberty should be a civil right given to each man.  Vatican II’s teaching was, therefore, direct heresy against infallible dogmatic teaching on the issue.

Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty rejects the entire History of Christendom and destroys Catholic Society

We’ve shown that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is heretical.  Many other examples could be given to illustrate that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty is false, evil and uncatholic.  For instance, the dogmatic Council of Vienne specifically enjoined on Catholic leaders of States that they must publicly control (i.e. publicly suppress) the public practice of Islamic worship.  Pope Clement V was reminding the State of its duty to prohibit the public profession of false religions.

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens [i.e., the followers of Islam, also called Muslims] live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.  These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty.  We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands.  We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”[82]

According to Vatican II, this teaching of the Council of Vienne is wrong.  It was also wrong, according to the teaching of Vatican II, that the Christian religion was declared to be the religion of the Roman Empire by Theodosius in 392 A.D. and all pagan temples were closed.[83]  This shows us again that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty was evil and heretical.

Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty is precisely the reason why, following Vatican II, a number of Catholic nations changed their Catholic constitutions in favor of secular ones!  The Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were actually suppressed at the express direction of the Vatican, and the laws of those countries changed to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions.

Changes to the Spanish Catholic Law as a result of the teaching of Vatican II

Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, Feb. 11, 1906: “We, in accord with the supreme authority which We hold from God, disapprove and condemn the established law which separates the French state from the Church, for those reasons which We have set forth: because it inflicts the greatest injury upon God whom it solemnly rejects, declaring in the beginning that the state is devoid of any religious worship…”[84]

Pope Gregory XVI, Inter Praecipuas (# 14), May 8, 1844: “Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty.”[85]

In line with its heretical teaching on religious liberty, Vatican II teaches the heresy that all religions have liberty of speech and liberty of the press.

Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”[86]

The idea that everyone has the right to liberty of speech and the press has been condemned by many popes.  We will only quote Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Leo XIII.  Notice that Pope Gregory XVI called this idea (the very thing taught by Vatican II) harmful and “never sufficiently denounced.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 15), Aug. 15, 1832: “Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor.  We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice.”[87]

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.”[88]

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (# 34), Nov. 1, 1885: “Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter Mirari Vos, dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated – namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man’s conscience is his sole and all-sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the state.”[89]

All of this Catholic teaching directly contradicts the heretical teaching of Vatican II.