Abbé Bernard Lucien's defence of Vatican II's new doctrine of religious liberty recently appeared in English. But his claims were already refuted years ago by his former colleague, Abbé Hervé Belmont.
One thing that always gets me about this debate is those who try to defend Dignitatis Humanae act like it lives in a vacuum. They always say “you *can* interpret it an an orthodox way” but they fail to truly acknowledge how has the modernist hierarchy (you know, those actually charged with interpreting and implementing the documents) interpreted it. From episodes such as Assisi 1986, Ratzinger’s giving communion to the Calvinist “Brother Roger” of Taize, it’s clear that the “orthodox interpretation” of DH is neither the one of the hierarchy nor the intended one of the original writers
Thank you for an excellent article. I believe the civil acceptance of abortion, homosexuality, etc. are a direct consequence of DH, let alone their acceptance within the Church or at a minimum not a few of Its members both lay and clerical. For there is no definitive argument against these practices except the religious one in the personal and civil spheres. The Nancy Pelosi argument exists, "I may be personally opposed to X but I can not 'coerce' someone else by supporting a law against it", because of this freedom of conscience and inherent unremitting human dignity never to be treaded upon. Under its terms the Church would have dissolved the Holy Roman Empire itself, just as it did all Catholic states. Indeed we see the criminalization of members of the Church for even teaching against these practices, a hate crime.
DH dovetails with the New Theology, a redefinition or even denial of sin, hell, and Christ Himself, a sense of universal salvation, as well as the liturgical reform with the deemphasis in its readings on the four last things and God's retribution for sin in the natural world. It is all of a freemasonic piece, John Courtaney Murray's undoubted inspiration being the U.S.A., materially flourishing and spiritually dying. As the author states one must look at DH in this entire context and its miserable fruit and acknowledge its heterodoxy.
One thing that always gets me about this debate is those who try to defend Dignitatis Humanae act like it lives in a vacuum. They always say “you *can* interpret it an an orthodox way” but they fail to truly acknowledge how has the modernist hierarchy (you know, those actually charged with interpreting and implementing the documents) interpreted it. From episodes such as Assisi 1986, Ratzinger’s giving communion to the Calvinist “Brother Roger” of Taize, it’s clear that the “orthodox interpretation” of DH is neither the one of the hierarchy nor the intended one of the original writers
Absolutely right.
Thank you for an excellent article. I believe the civil acceptance of abortion, homosexuality, etc. are a direct consequence of DH, let alone their acceptance within the Church or at a minimum not a few of Its members both lay and clerical. For there is no definitive argument against these practices except the religious one in the personal and civil spheres. The Nancy Pelosi argument exists, "I may be personally opposed to X but I can not 'coerce' someone else by supporting a law against it", because of this freedom of conscience and inherent unremitting human dignity never to be treaded upon. Under its terms the Church would have dissolved the Holy Roman Empire itself, just as it did all Catholic states. Indeed we see the criminalization of members of the Church for even teaching against these practices, a hate crime.
DH dovetails with the New Theology, a redefinition or even denial of sin, hell, and Christ Himself, a sense of universal salvation, as well as the liturgical reform with the deemphasis in its readings on the four last things and God's retribution for sin in the natural world. It is all of a freemasonic piece, John Courtaney Murray's undoubted inspiration being the U.S.A., materially flourishing and spiritually dying. As the author states one must look at DH in this entire context and its miserable fruit and acknowledge its heterodoxy.