Development Or Discontinuity? Ist Movement That Ended in Schism the Second Vatican Council and Religious Freedom from Rome
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Doctrine proved by an overwhelming major- ity of the Council Fathers (2,308 to 70), Lefebvre founded a traditional- Development or Discontinuity? ist movement that ended in schism The Second Vatican Council and Religious Freedom from Rome. There are some factual errors here. Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means the most notable of the critics of Dignitatis Humanae during Vatican II. Alfredo Cardinal Ottavi- ani, Prefect of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), and President of the Council’s Theological Commission was the most prominent opponent of the declaration, which was also opposed by such cardinals as Ernesto Ruffini of Pal- by Michael Davies ermo, the outstanding Irish theologian Michael Browne he journal First Things of language, and contains of the Curia, de Arriba y TDecember 2001 published the very detailed documenta- Castro of Tarragona, Santos text of a lecture delivered by Avery tion on the classic Catholic of Manila, Florit of Florence, and Cardinal Dulles in New York City. teaching on Church and State, the Giuseppe Siri of Genoa, and Father It was entitled “Religious Freedom: debates on religious liberty during Anicito Fernandez, Master General Innovation and Development” and the Second Vatican Council, and the of the Dominicans. was a defense of Dignitatis Hu- final text of Dignitatis Humanae, Archbishop Lefebvre did not manae (DH), the Declaration on contrasting it with the classic papal found the Society of Saint Pius X in Religious Freedom of the Second teaching. Those wishing to go to reaction to the Council’s approval Vatican Council, dated December 7, the original source of the quotations of the declaration. His society was 1965. The fact that a scholar of the in this article will find them on the canonically established on Novem- eminence of Cardinal Dulles feels pages indicated. ber 1, 1970 with the full approval of that it is still necessary to defend Cardinal Dulles describes Dig- the Holy See and his seminary was the declaration thirty-six years after nitatis Humanae praised in 1971 its promulgation is significant in as “one of the Cardinal Dulles describes by John Cardinal itself. In the course of this essay I most striking Dignitatis Humanae as Wright, Prefect of will make frequent references to my developments in the Congregation book The Second Vatican Council twentieth-century “one of the most striking for the Clergy.1 and Religious Liberty (SVCRL), Catholicism,” and developments in twentieth- The figure which is, to the best of my knowl- informs us that: of a 2,308-to-70 edge, the only detailed critique of century Catholicism.” vote of approval Dignitatis Humanae in the English At the Council of Dignitatis itself some conservative bishops, Humanae cited by Cardinal Dulles Michael Davies is president of Una Marcel Lefebvre most notably, does not give a correct picture of Voce International and the author of held that Dignitatis Humanae was the opposition to the Declaration many books on Catholic history and contrary to established Catholic within the Council. Voting for the liturgy. Lead Kindly Light, his new teaching and could not be adopted sixth and final schema (draft docu- biography of Cardinal Newman, is without violence to the Catholic ment) took place on November 19, reviewed elsewhere in this issue. faith. When, notwithstanding his 1965, and the vote was 1954 to 249.2 protests, the Declaration was ap- On December 3, Msgr. Giuseppe 48 Spring 2002 Development or Discontinuity? Doctrine di Meglio, an Italian specialist in like wise Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B., nature, cannot be compelled. international law, circulated a letter ‘We always voted at our party’s call; stating that the voting figures indi- we never thought of thinking for It is, of course, traditional cated that: ourselves at all.’”4 teaching that the act of faith, being Cardinal Dulles concedes, “If free, by its very nature, cannot be For a notable number of Council Dignitatis Humanae is compared compelled. Saint Thomas Aquinas Fathers the teaching and practical with earlier official Catholic teach- taught that unbelievers such as the applications of the schema are not ing, it represents an undeniable, heathens and the Jews who have acceptable in conscience. In fact, even a dramatic, change. The ques- never received the Faith should by the fundamental principle of the tion must therefore be asked: Was no means be compelled to believe schema has remained unchanged the Declaration a homogeneous because the act of belief depends on despite the amendments that have development within the Catholic the will. They should, he adds, be been introduced: that is, the right tradition, or was it a repudiation of prevented from hindering the faith of error...Since the declaration on previous Church doctrine?” He goes of believers by blasphemies, evil religious freedom has no dogmatic persuasions, or open persecution. value, the negative votes of the Even when Christ’s faithful wage Council Fathers will constitute a victorious war with unbelievers a factor of great importance for in defense of the Faith the defeated future studies of the Declaration party should not be forcibly con- itself, and particularly for the verted.5 This teaching is echoed by emphasis to be placed upon it (my Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Im- emphasis).3 mortale Dei: “The Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall Following this vote Pope Paul VI be forced to embrace the Catholic approved the sixth schema. Accord- faith against his will, for, as Saint ing to the accepted etiquette, once a Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man schema became a papally approved cannot believe otherwise than by his Archbishop R. J. Dwyer conciliar document even those who own free will.’” had voted against the final schema on: The apparent repudiation of should vote placet (yes) in the vote previous Church doctrine is found for the papally approved text. The The Council taught that all human in the first of the three sentences fact that 70 voted non placet (no) persons have by nature an inalien- cited, “that all human persons have therefore holds considerable signifi- able right to be free in seeking by nature an inalienable right to be cance. The true feelings of Council religious truth, in living and wor- free…in bearing witness to their Fathers were manifested by their shipping according to their reli- beliefs without hindrance from any votes for the final draft, and not for gious convictions, and in bearing human power.” Cardinal Dulles the actual document. It adds that: “The Council should not be imagined Archbishop Lefebvre did not found the Society of taught that the State has that the majority of the Saint Pius X in reaction to the Council’s approval an obligation to protect majority who voted in of the Declaration (Dignitatis Humanae). His the inviolable rights of favor of the Declaration all citizens, including were familiar with, or society was canonically established on November 1, the right of religious even interested in, the 1970 with the full approval of the Holy See… freedom. It did not serious issues involved. teach that the State was As was the case throughout the witness to their beliefs without hin- obliged to give legal Council, the majority of the Fathers drance from any human power. This privileges to Christianity or Catholi- voted with the majority simply principle was theologically ground- cism, although it did not rule out because it was the majority. Arch- ed in the fact that God, respecting such arrangements. It did deny that bishop R. J. Dwyer of Portland, the dignity of the human person, civil government had the authority Oregon, one of the most erudite of invites a voluntary and uncoerced to command or prohibit religious the American bishops, remarked: adherence to religious truth. The acts.” “And when the vote came around, act of faith, being free by its very To put it briefly, the Cardinal Spring 2002 49 Doctrine Development or Discontinuity? interprets Dignitatis Humanae as firming that Dignitatis Humanae did of theology in the United States, stating that all human persons have a not affirm that anyone has a natural carried out a consistent defense of natural right to bear witness to their right, a moral right, to believe in or the traditional papal teaching on beliefs without hindrance from the to propagate error, but upheld the Church and State, including articles civil government, and in describ- traditional teaching in this respect. contributed by Cardinal Ottaviani. ing this as “an undeniable, even a The Declaration affirmed not a mor- In a criticism of those who rejected dramatic change” al but a civil liberty, the traditional teaching the Cardinal from previous official and so the question wrote: Catholic teaching he must be considered is certainly correct. from a purely juridical To justify themselves these people Before examining standpoint. assert that in the body of teaching the previous official It seems impos- imparted within the Church there Catholic teaching sible to reconcile the are to be distinguished two ele- it is necessary to Cardinal’s affirmation ments, the one permanent, and the make a distinction of of a natural right not other transient. This latter is sup- crucial importance to be prevented from posed to be due to the reflection of that must be kept in propagating error in particular contemporary conditions. mind throughout this the public forum with Unfortunately, they carry this article. This is the the homogeneous tactic so far as to apply it to the distinction between corpus of previous principles taught in pontifical religious liberty Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani papal teaching. This documents, principles on which considered from a legal or juridi- teaching had been attacked in the the teachings of the Popes have cal standpoint (as a civil right) and decades preceding the Council by remained constant so as to make from a theological standpoint.