Dignitatis Humanae taught that
In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. (n.3)When we read the encyclical letter Quanta Cura of Blessed Pope Pius IX there seems to be a sharp contrast since he condemns the error of liberty of conscience and worship, agreeing with Pope Gregory XVI that this was an insanity, as well as condemning the insane idea 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. (n.3)Blessed Pope Pius IX was referring to the encyclical letter Mirari Vos in which his predecessor Pope Gregory XVI said:
This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. (n.14)He went on to say:
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. (n.15)Most people today would instinctively reject the statements of Blessed Pope Pius IX and Pope Gregory XVI and enthusiastically applaud the Church for finally coming round to the view that we should have liberty of conscience.
Except in the case of Bishop Williamson.
Bishop Williamson believed what he said when he denied that Jews were killed in gas chambers. He was wrong, but he was not saying something that he personally believed to be false. He felt somehow duty bound to express these views because he believed that his (utterly mistaken) view of history ought to be made known in order to counteract what he believes to be a false view of history. In other words, he was acting in accord with his conscience. It was an erroneous conscience that could be informed by attention to the evidence of the holocaust provided particularly by records meticulously kept by the Nazi regime and produced as evidence at the Nuremburg trials. (There is much else that can be easily found to refute the nonsense of Fred Leuchter and others.) Nevertheless, he was following his conscience.
If we read Dignitatis Humanae in a simplistic way, leaving the statement about liberty of conscience devoid of the context of the tradition of the Church, we might end up saying that Bishop Williamson should be free to express his views and should not be restrained from acting in accord with his conscience. Bishop Fellay's order, prohibiting his expression of such views might be seen as a contravention of the principle of liberty of conscience enshrined in Vatican II.
But we think that Bishop Fellay is right to issue this prohibition. So how can we reconcile such coercion with Vatican II? Clearly we must read Vatican II in the light of tradition, interpret it in accord with the constant teaching of the Church: we must apply the "hermeneutic of continuity."
In fact, we can find some hints even in Dignitatis Humanae itself to support such a reading. Earlier on, the Declaration affirmed that:
On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it. (n.1)This principle is prior to the principle of freedom of conscience. A further restraint on liberty of conscience is provided by the test of "public order." Speaking of religious freedom (although the principle also applies to freedom of conscience) Dignitatis Humanae says that a person should have immunity from coercion but adds an important proviso:
In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. (n.2 - my empahsis)In some states, denial of the holocaust is a criminal offence - the state intervenes for the sake of the public order to prevent the encouragement of neo-nazism. Such states recognise that liberty of conscience has its limits. Most people also think that the truth about the holocaust is an important matter - whether or not holocaust denial is punishable in civil law. As far as the holocaust is concerned, "error has no rights" and the world concords with Blessed Pope Pius IX in seeing the absolute liberty of conscience as an insanity.
Indeed the world's press agrees with Pope Gregory XVI in being horrified at the "monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors" that are proclaimed when the liberty of conscience is unrestrained by the obligation of seeking the truth and the duty to preserve public order and recognises that the idea that liberty of conscience should be proclaimed for everyone is "an absurd and erroneous proposition."
The media furore over Bishop Williamson thus neatly demonstrates that it is perfectly reasonable to interpret Dignitatis Humanae in the light of Mirari Vos and Quanta Cura.
When the regularisation of the SSPX is completed and the SSPX Bishops are part of national Bishops' Conferences, we might want to take a look at the notion of collegiality.
25 comments:
A hermeneutic of continuity might see "public order" as meaning the "common good." See the important gloss in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 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."
Touché, Fr. Finigan!
How this hermeneutic begins to take root!
I think the problem with Bishop Williamson is not that he should have no right to say what he thinks. However, there are some views that one might hold (in my view, such as those of Bishop Williamson) that mark one out as unfit to hold the office or title one has.
In my mind, seriously denying the facts of the holocaust falls into that category and this man should not be allowed to hold office in the Church. To allow him to continue doing so, sadly, sullies the entire Church and everyone in it (including myself).
Bishop Willamson ought to be about as welcome at a traditional event as a topless dancer at a funeral.
For an interesting take on his clownish remarks visit www.plain-talking.com
Thank you very much for this post, Father. I learned a lot from reading it; and this is an example of a 'niche' that is, so far, not being properly exploited. I'm using the wrong language there, but suffice to say I mean that we need a lot more written on how we can read and understand what was said at Vatican II as a continuation of and in concordance with the Church's will in the past.
I'm all for reading about how we "must" view it as a hermeneutic of continuity, but I much prefer practical examples such as this one you give here. Thank you again.
Excellent piece, Father - this should be published so that more people can read it.
This post reminds me of a talk given by the Catholic Chaplain at St Andrews entitled: 'Does obedience to the Church compromise my conscience?'
He stressed the need for a well formed conscience, and it being the Church's duty to form us and ours to cooperate with this formation.
If anyone is interested in listening to the talk it is available at this url: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~cathweb/podcastsm07.htm
BRAVO!! That was such an excellent article and really admirable both for it's intellectual sophistication and it's highly rational, common-sense approach.
Huge applause from a very wintry West London...
Hope you're doing ok in your neck of the woods.
Those looking for an excellent account of the complementarity of Dignitatis Humanae and prior teaching on the matter of religious liberty should take a look at Fr Harrison's now out-of-print book, Religious Liberty and Contraception. The title is such because Fr Harrison looks at whether an alleged "contradiction" in teaching on religious liberty justifies hope for a change in teaching on contraception. His response is to show that there is no such contradiction.
A sample of his approach can be seen if you scroll down to his review of Michael Davies' book on the subject here:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt44.html
Thank you Father for your post - very useful and thought-provoking as always.
I've always felt that if my conscience encourages me to act in a way contrary to the Church then I am obliged to retrain my conscience. Conscience per se is not some independent good but rather our way of hearing the voice of God, which speaks through His Church.
Where the Church is not clear on what is to be desired, then we seek clarification, pray and enter into dialogue. But we don't reject.
This would seem to help resolve the apparent dilemma in your post.
And I don't see how anything other than a hermeneutic of continuity can be justified!
Father - why don't you send this to the National Catholic Register over here in the US - a good orthodox paper - and you would get the coverage this article deserves.
Excellent and well reasoned blog-post Father Tim!
It is notable that the concept of the Hermeneutic of Continuity (as well as the blog site )is coming increasingly to the fore on these vital issues in the life of the Church today.
It will be an important key to correct interpretation and deeper understanding as time goes by. To help the Church in our lands (and beyond) to move through these times and issues, men of such clear insight, combined with charity and good humour will be needed more than ever to lead the Church.
This is another reason why we continue to stand by our hopes that you will be a part of that in the future... (Hopefully the hat would be red, but at least purple!!!)
In Christ
Alan and Angeline
I think in Michael Davies book on Religious Liberty, the difficulties that Archbishop Lefebrve had with DH could be limited to the the two words et publicae: the fact is a Catholic state should always suppress public expressions of anything false, for the greater good of its citizens. This does not mean that non-Catholics can't practice their faith at all (they certainly can privately) but the promotion and proselyting of other people into what is objectively a false religion is to impede the Social Reign of Christ the King. Has the church ever allowed Catholic states, in principle, to allow different religions to publically express themselves?
And if DH is totally resonant with Tradition, then why did liberals like John Courtney Murray SJ and Yves Congar OP, hail it as a change in teaching?
But then again, it is probably considered bigoted to talk today about things like the "Social Reign of Christ the King".
Well done for tackling a very problematic subject with clarity and wisdom. Religious liberty is a key area where the Church's timeless teaching has to be re-established and the fog that has billowed up from Vatican II's less than clear pronouncements has caused immense damage. Unless we get a Catholic understanding of religious liberty, we will not be able to tackle the false notions of ecumenism that have so weakened many Catholics' belief in the Bride of Christ as the one true church. Of course this is an example of the kind of doctrinal talks that the Church and the SSPX need to engage in, but its significance is for the whole Church. Well done for getting the ball rolling and demonstrating that Gregory XVI and Bl. Pius IX's encyclicals are not some monstrous restrictions on our liberty.
Father, Excellent article. Very good how you turned the media into defenders of the traditional teaching that error has no rights. But then again, the State always becomes totalitarian the farther it moves along the democracy spectrum over a period of years.
Could you perhaps comment upon the level of authority of DH compared to the previous texts and papal documents? I was under the impression that when Popes repeated a teaching over numerous pontificates (in this case, at least three in a row), then that teaching can be infallible as part of the Ordinary magisterial teaching. Certainly, DH, not based upon Sacred Scripture or really any teaching of the Fathers of the Church, is of a lesser authority?
Appunto.
Would be interested to hear your comments on this: www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090129_1.htm
That's assuming you have some spare time, of course!
Father, I second all the recommendations to get this published somewhere!
Delia - many thanks for the link to that article which is an intelligently argued case for the hermeneutic of discontinuity. I do think that it is important to offer an answer to the case that is made there and I will set to work on it when I have a little time.
Dear Fr. Tim, I enjoyed the post - it is a worthy contribution to the hermeneutic of continuity. I read the article cited by Delia - I too would like to hear your reaction. I could think of a few objections to it already.
The Moffatt article, purporting to rehabilitate discontinuity, seems to me to make a point that is of rather trivial importance.
Moffatt's point can be reduced to this: if, at some time T1, the church does or affirms X, and at a later time T2 it does or affirms not-X, then there is a "radical" discontinuity. (Examples Moffatt gives include ad orientem/versus populum, and interpretation of Genesis as history versus myth.)
The problem underlying his argument is that even a paradigm example of continuous change can be dressed up as discontinuity under a certain set of descriptions.
Consider the example of a bulb that gradually (continuously) brightens for a finite period (e.g. if I turn a domestic lamp dimmer from minimum to maximum). There is a time T1 at which the bulb is dim; and there is a time T2 at which it is bright. Clearly, the bulb's state at T2 can be described as "non-dim" and this can be presented as a (logical) discontinuity. However, what one means by saying that the bulb brightens continuously is that there is no time between T1 and T2 at which the bulb did not have a degree of luminosity somewhere on the continuum from dim to bright.
If we were to accept the dim/non-dim transition as a "discontinuity", then in effect we would be assimilating the concept of discontinuity to the concept of change, so that any change whatever could be described as a discontinuity.
But there is no reason why we should accept this assimilation. The distinction between gradual and seismic change is readily apparent to the dullest imagination.
CPKS
Quite right. I found myself agreeing with Fr Moffatt's comments through much of his article... then realised he was proposing something I disagree with. The old trick of slightly shifting the terms of the debate, which would be fine in isolation but not when they are then taken to make a new case.
This seems to have happened several times over with Vatican II.
Fr Moffatt is chaplain of Oxford University. They are so lucky to have such a thoughtful and brilliant priest. He was an amazing school chaplain.
CKPS
So on that scheme, the only way in which one could have a rupture would be through a power cut (i.e., the Holy Spirit taking the day off), but then presumably when the power came on the bulb would be at the same intensity as it was before. Sorry, am a bit of a pleb in these matters ...
Father, Bishop Ketteler of Mainz addressed the question of Religious Freedom in his work "Freedom, Authority and the Church." The Remnant recently published chapter on Religious Freedom and it is simply the best I have seen relative to DH and the Hermeneutic of Continuity on the matter. Given the title and object of your Blog, I hope you consider giving us your thoughts on it.
Ketteler on Religious Freedom
God Bless,
Keith
Many thanks indeed for that link, Keith.
Post a Comment