Error Has No Rights Latin
Contents |
of the Holy Office (successor to the Inquisition, in journalese) and scourge of the nouvelle théologie of the 1950s, was a formidable figure in pre-conciliar Catholicism. Ottavianis error has no rights history approach to theology was neatly summarized in the Latin motto of his cardinalatial
Syllabus Of Errors
coat of arms, Semper Idem [Always the Same], and his fierce defense of what he understood to be orthodoxy made him
Dignitatis Humanae
a not-implausible model for the character of Cardinal Leone in Morris Wests novel The Shoes of the Fisherman . Despite the caricatures of the world press, Ottaviani was no monster; indeed, he was reputed to be a man of considerable personal charm. Nor was he a dyed-in-the-wool conservative politically; he wanted the council to condemn all forms of modern war, another cause in which Ottaviani (whose Vatican II batting average did not rise above the Mendoza Line) failed. But perhaps his greatest defeat at the council came on the question of Church and state. For before and during the Vatican II years, Cardinal Ottaviani stoutly, and, ultimately, futilely, resisted the development of doctrine that led the worlds bishops to approve the councils Declaration on Religious Freedom . As a legal scholar considering the future of society, Ottavianis fear was that religious freedom would result in religious indifference and then a collapse of religious conviction, which would in turn lead to state hostility toward religious believers and religious institutions. His theological argument against religious freedom, widely held in the Roman universities of the day, rested on the proposition that error has no rights. The councils response to that claim was that persons have rights, whether their religious opinions be erroneous or not, and that, in any event, states lack theological competence. Alfredo Ottaviani lost virtually every one of the battles he fought at Vatican II, but from his present, post-mortem position he may be enjoying a last laugh (if of a subdued, even sorrowful, sort). For the notion that error has no rights is very much alive”and precisely in those quarters where religious indifference has indeed led to intolerance of religious conviction. When a Canadian Evangelical pastor is levied a significant fine for advocating biblical truth about men, women,
when to remove these template messages) The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (October 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (October 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article gives a historical overview of Christian positions on Persecution of Christians, persecutions by https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/05/the-last-laugh-of-alfredo-ottaviani Christians, religious persecution and toleration. Christian theologians like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas had legitimized religious persecution to various extents, and during the Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Christians considered heresy and dissent to be punishable offences. However, Early modern Europe witnessed the turning point in the history of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance. Christian writers like John Milton and John Locke argued for limited religious toleration, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_persecution_and_tolerance and later secular authors like Thomas Jefferson developed the concept of religious freedom. Christians nowadays generally accept that heresy and dissent are not punishable by a civil authority. Many Christians "look back on the centuries of persecution with a mixture of revulsion and incomprehension."[1] Contents 1 Historical background 2 Christian Roman doctrine in 4th and 5th century A.D. 2.1 The Augustinian consensus 2.2 The treatment of heretics 3 The Protestant theory of persecution 4 Protestant advocacy for toleration 4.1 The English Protestant 'Call for Toleration' 4.2 Developments in 17th-century England 5 In the United States 6 The mid-20th-century Spanish model 7 Modern Roman Catholic policy 8 See also 9 Literature 10 Notes 11 Further reading Historical background[edit] Early Christianity was a minority religion in the Roman Empire and the early Christians were themselves persecuted during that time. After Constantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already beginning under his reign, Christian heretics were persecuted; The most extreme case (as far as historians know) was the burning of Priscillian and six of his followers at the stake in 383.[2] In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion.[3] Beginning in the late
Many ThingsWashington FrontVatican DispatchCultureArtPoetryBooksFilmIdeasTheaterTelevisionBlogsIn All ThingsThe Good Word(Un)Conventional WisdomDispatchesMediaVideoPodcastsSlide ShowsSiriusXMResourcesCatholic Book ClubE BooksTeacher ResourcesGeorge Hunt Writing PrizeWeb Only Articles Login / Register FacebookTwitterLinkedIn Religious Liberty November 28, 2005 IssueJohn A. ColemanOn Dec. 7 we commemorate the 40th anniversary of the promulgation of the “Declaration on Religious Liberty” http://americamagazine.org/issue/552/article/religious-liberty (known also by the opening words of the Latin text, Dignitatis Humanae). No other decree of the Second Vatican Council was so controversial, underwent so many trials and setbacks (six separate drafts) or loomed so spectrally large as the crucial litmus test case for the success or failure of the council. No other document called forth letter campaigns from leading progressive bishops, involved several interventions of Pope Paul error has VI at the council or became the focus of such dramatic events as the famous “black Thursday,” Nov. 19, 1964, when—in what seemed a maneuver of the Roman curial conservatives—a vote on the document was peremptorily stalled. During the debates, the declaration called forth 600 written interventions, 120 public speeches, several consultations between sessions of the council and some 2,000 modi or proposed amendments. It was finally approved error has no 2,308 to 70. Forty years on, we can ask three questions about the document: What was at stake at Vatican II in approving the declaration? What are its achievements but also its limits, flaws and lacunae? And how does a retrospective reading of the text and its history provoke new questions about religious liberty today? What Was at Stake? Readers interested in a detailed history of how the declaration emerged first as a chapter in the proposed decree on ecumenism, became later a separate appendix of the ecumenism document and, then, as an autonomous document underwent successive drafts—in which, alternately, the right to religious liberty was rooted in tolerance coupled with charity, later in the freedom of conscience, again later in the vocation of the human to seek the truth and finally in the objective nature of human dignity—can pursue these vagaries of the text in standard histories of the council. The declaration became a theological football in turf wars between the council’s theological commission, chaired by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, and the Secretariat for Christian Unity, chaired by Cardinal Augustin Bea, S.J. Ottaviani thought any treatment of religious liberty belonged in the document on the church, entrusted to the Theological Commission, since religiou