Posted on 07/19/2004 8:29:56 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
CARDINAL TAURAN: WARFARE DOES NOT PREVENT REFLECTION
DOHA (QATAR) MAY 27, 2004 (VIS) - Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, librarian and archivist of Holy Roman Church and former Secretary for Relations with States, was one of the principal speakers this morning at the first public session of the Qatar Conference on Muslim-Christian Dialogue, being held in the capital of Doha from May 27 to 29. The conference was organized by the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Muslims and the Gulf Studies Center of Qatar University.
Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Commission, addressed words of welcome to the invited guests. Other speakers this morning included Sheikh Abdullah Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, foreign minister of Qatar, Sheikh Mohammad Sayed Tantawi, Grand Iman of al-Azhar, His Holiness Anba Pope Shenouda III, Youssef Al-Qaradawi of the University of Qatar and Hamid Bin Ahmad Al-Rifaie, president of the International Islamic Forum for Dialogue.
Cardinal Tauran, in his address in English, called the Qatar meeting "an eloquent witness to fraternity. The sound of warfare, which is heard not far from us, will not prevent us from reflecting upon our responsibilities as believers, or from addressing a message of friendship to all those willing to accept it. Our meeting is first of all a meeting of believers. Since we acknowledge that we are children of the same God, we can accept our differences and together devote ourselves to the service of society, with respect for justice, moral values and peace."
He went on to say that the meeting is "also a dialogue between believers belonging to two different religions. In order to avoid any syncretism or caricature of others, it is important that each person remain loyal to his or her own faith." He quoted Pope John Paul II who on numerous occasions has highlighted the many things that Muslims and Christians have in common as "worshippers of God" and "seekers of God" and "believers in the same God. . The Catholic Church regards with respect and recognizes . the richness of your spiritual tradition. We Christians, too, are proud of our religious tradition."
Cardinal Tauran stated that "for this reason, freedom of conscience and of religion is important, even absolutely necessary. . Religious freedom respects at the same time both God and man! It is absolute and reciprocal. It extends beyond the individual to the community; it has both a civil and social dimension.. Religious freedom thus understood and lived out can become a powerful factor for building peace." He said that believers promote justice, human dignity, and peace and solidarity among peoples.
"Political leaders have nothing to fear from true believers," he said. "Authentic believers are also the best antidote to all forms of fanaticism, because they know that preventing their brothers and sisters from practicing their religion, discriminating against a follower of a religion other than one's own, or worse still, killing in the name of religion, are abominations that offend God and which no cause or authority, be it political or religious, can ever justify.
Cardinal Tauran highlighted the need "to initiate a dialogue of trust between civil and religious authorities, so that the rights and the obligations of believers and their communities will be firmly established and guaranteed, with particular respect for the principle of reciprocity. . One cannot claim to obtain one's legitimate rights and freedoms by tramping upon those of others!
"Here in Doha," he concluded, "all of us can, indeed we must, do our part in paving the way of fraternity and peace!"
bookmark
Yes, a doctrine concerning civil immunity so long as the religious activities do not threaten the rights of citizens, the public morality, or a genuine public peace - that is, so long as the common good is not threatened. A determination of this is to be based on the objective moral order as interpreted by the Church (DH 7), since the state is to have the Catholic Church of Christ as her established religion (DH 1).
Of course, almost all false religions threaten public morality. And this right to be tolerated applies only to monotheistic religions - polytheists have no rights at all under the Declaration: "Provided the just demands of public order [common good] are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may ... honor the Supreme Being in public worship" (DH 4).
In no way does the Declaration repeal the traditional doctrine that "that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated".
Yes, a doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of the Church, which "ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council" (Nota Praevia).
Please state the exact doctrine, or rather, please show the exact document which declares the doctrine to which you are referring? Thanks.
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. 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.
7. 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.
Ping. Using classical Thomism against "traditionalists," so-called.
Ping.
Ping.
Ping.
Didn't you said you did your Masters' thesis on religious liberty, Mershon?
Didn't you say you did your Masters' thesis on religious liberty, Mershon?
Specifically, the title was the following:
"Dignitatis Humanae & Vatican II Reaffirm the Traditional Teaching of Christ’s Kingship Over Hearts, Minds and Wills, Families and Societies"
65 pages, with 60-plus sources, mostly original (encyclicals, councils and Scripture), heavily footnoted with authoritative Church documents from pre-Vatican II, Vatican II, and post-Vatican II, showing the harmonization. Thesis was accepted and approved by Holy Apostles College and Seminary. Am awaiting word on a "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur" for possible publishing consideration.
You are doing a fine job in your defense. 65 pages is a little bit long to post here.
According to the common opinion of theologians, and apparently, the Vatican, the teaching on religious liberty, in the limited and restricted sense in which the Council Fathers and magisterium after Vatican II teaches it, is most likely a level 3 or level 4 teaching. It is at the least part of the "authentic" magisterium, issued in a solemn ecumenical council. Or it is a development (NOT a contradiction: Any trads OR modernists who interpret it as a contradiction of the previous, continuous ordinary magisterial teaching are both in error, and is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium. In either case (level 3 or 4), it is owed the "religious respect of mind and will" referenced in Lumen Gentium due to all teachings of the living or ordinary magisterium. Levels 1 and 2 are believed to be infallible teachings. Just because DH is not necessarily infallible, does not mean Catholics may freely disregard it or call the ideas of its texts into question. "Religious assent (respect) of mind and will" means exactly what it says.
Let's keep a focus on the Cardinal's brand of ecumenism. I'd be willing to be sidetracked eventually, but just for now...
As a traditional Catholic myself, I am the first one to have a sensitive side toward the false ecumenism of priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope.
However, let's keep this in mind. First, dialogue with Muslims is NOT ecumenism--as that is reserved for non-Catholic Christians, and for some reason, the Jews. Second, if the Catholic Church is going to have any "liberty" at all to teach in non-Catholic countries, it had better continue to "beat the drum" for religious liberty, even if the real meaning is limited to allowing teaching the Catholic Faith. Without at least a "civil right" to religious liberty, the Church will cease to be allowed to teach in Israel and in newly-formed Islamic governments, which will happen increasingly in yours and my lifetime. This "right," properly understood (which is NOT the same meaning of religious liberty or religious freedom that is condemned in the 19th and early 20th centuries), is solely for allowing the truth to be promulgated in hostile nations. In fact, DH itself, states within the first few paragraphs that "the traditional teaching on religious liberty" is to be maintained. So anyone (liberal or traddie) who reads the document without the traditional understanding in mind, is not reading it according to the mind of the Church.
I see very little wrong with anything Cardinal Tauran said in this address. How are we going to win any adherents or favorable ears in the Muslim world without these sorts of symposiums? Perhaps he should just go and state Unam Sanctam, ask them to repent and convert, and then turn around and walk out? I'm sure that will accomplish a lot toward calming flames of Islam. I'm not certain these methods will do a whole lot of good, but we can always speculate that whatever happens in the class of civilizations in the future, it could have gotten worse faster without these sort of "reflections" and "dialogues."
Since you responded to one point of my post, I will assume the rest of it was not objectionable.
Of course, prayer and fasting are part of the mix--and are the most important part. And do you know the good Cardinal does not do this?
I agree with you that prayer and fasting are the most important. Maybe we can get them to do a news article on that??? Then you can post it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.