Card. Levada Defends Rel. Liberty; Claims Abp. Lefebvre was "on path into schism".

[Caminus]

At the end of the day, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae called for all civil governments to be formally indifferent to the truth claims of religion as a matter of principle, so any defense of the document that is predicated upon governments making such distinctions it essentially moot.  It also declared that all men have the positive legal right, no matter what religion is professed, to adhere to, publically profess and propagate said religion.  It declared that all constitutions should embody these principles. 

[StevusMagnus]

At the end of the day, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae called for all civil governments to be formally indifferent to the truth claims of religion as a matter of principle, so any defense of the document that is predicated upon governments making such distinctions it essentially moot.  It also declared that all men have the positive legal right, no matter what religion is professed, to adhere to, publically profess and propagate said religion.  It declared that all constitutions should embody these principles. 

Exactly. And in doing so it vetoed 1960 years of Cathoic Tradition. Even it's authors and proponents triumphantly admitted as much. It was their aim and goal from the outset. And they have accomplished their goals as no Catholic Confessional State remains standing. All of Europe and Latin America has been secularized. Congrats Modernists! You have indeed triumphed.

[StevusMagnus]

http://www.dici.org/accueil.php

Editorial:

Silent Secularity and Positive Apostasy

 On September 12, at the Elysée, when we heard the convergent discourses of Benedict XVI and Nicolas Sarkozy concerning “positive secularity,” we wonder whether the added epithet can change to the depths the nature of secularity. Even positive, it nevertheless remains laicist, i.e. radically opposed to Christian institutions!

To come to terms with a positive, a smiling or a camouflaged secularity means giving up Christianity, as the bishops of France plainly said in the Dagens Report in 1997: “Without hesitation, we accept, as Catholics, to take place in the present cultural and institutional context, which is especially characterized by the emergence of individualism and by the principle of secularity. We reject any nostalgia for times gone by when the principle of authority seemed to be an unquestionable fact. We do not dream of an impossible return to what used to be called Christendom.”

In 2003, in his apostolic exhortation Ecclesia in Europa, John Paul II deplored a state of “silent apostasy.” Such  a state was not the fruit of spontaneous generation. Secularism positively contributes to it.

 

Fr. Alain Lorans

[newschoolman]

At the end of the day, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae called for all civil governments to be formally indifferent to the truth claims of religion as a matter of principle, so any defense of the document that is predicated upon governments making such distinctions it essentially moot.  It also declared that all men have the positive legal right, no matter what religion is professed, to adhere to, publically profess and propagate said religion.  It declared that all constitutions should embody these principles. 

Not at all.  Refer to the text...

The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility. Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.  These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.” (Cf. DH, 7)

[Caminus]

That doesn't contradict what I said.

[confiteor1]

At the end of the day, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae  called for all civil governments to be formally indifferent to the  truth claims of religion as a matter of principle ....

 
I don't know about "the end of the day", but can you cite an exact quotation from DH that supports your assertion?

[jovan66102]

At the end of the day, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae called for all civil governments to be formally indifferent to the truth claims of religion as a matter of principle ....

I don't know about "the end of the day", but can you cite an exact quotation from DH that supports your assertion?

 

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.[2] This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

 

[Hotspur]

Equivocation fallacy by newschoolman with regards to 'religious liberty'. Of course he doesn't realize that Von  Ketteler's outlined principles can be implemented into a confessional state.  Hence, he also portrays something as mutually exclusive when it is not.

[confiteor1]

At the end of  the day, Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanae called for all civil  governments to be formally indifferent to the truth claims of religion  as a matter of principle ....

I don't know about "the end of the day", but can you cite an exact quotation from DH that supports your assertion?

2.  This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to  religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune  from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any  human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a  manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly,  whether alone or in association with others within due limits.

The  council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its  foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is  known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.[2] This  right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in  the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to  become a civil right.

 
  Sorry, Jovan, but that quote does  not say, nor need it be construed to mean, that all civil governments must be formally indifferent to the truth claims of religion as a matter of principle.
 
  A government can be explicitly Catholic and yet decline to compel  individuals by force to confess the Catholic Faith. The refusal to use  force to compel belief does not equate to formal indifference to the  truth claims of Catholicism as a matter of principle.
 
  Perhaps you can still find a quote from DH that supports what so far appears to be a baseless assertion.  Keep trying.

[jovan66102]

Sorry, Jovan, but that quote does not say, nor need it be construed to mean, that all civil governments must be formally indifferent to the truth claims of religion as a matter of principle.

A government can be explicitly Catholic and yet decline to compel individuals by force to confess the Catholic Faith. The refusal to use force to compel belief does not equate to formal indifference to the truth claims of Catholicism as a matter of principle.

Perhaps you can still find a quote from DH that supports what so far appears to be a baseless assertion. Keep trying.

 

Our minds must work entirely differently! I remember years before becoming a Catholic, having read and been horrified by the Traditional Magisterium as expressed in the Syllabus, reading the opening sections of DH and thinking, 'Thank God, at least the Catholics have given up that crap and now realise all religions are equal'.

 

My opinion of DH has not changed, just my attitude toward it.