Error has no rights: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 22:20, 27 November 2024

"Error has no rights" (Latin: Error non habet ius^[1]^[2]) is a historical Catholic and traditionalist Catholic principle. It asserts that it is the responsibility of governments to suppress non-Catholic religions as they do not have a right to express publicly any religion outside of Catholicism which should be the only religion allowed by the State, but had the right to privately profess and practice any religion. Alternatively, it asserts that while non-Catholics had civil or political rights, there is no theological toleration for such religious beliefs.^[3]^[4] It was still the official position of the Catholic Church in the 1950s, and was repudiated^[5]^[6] or superseded^[7] in the Second Vatican Council of 1962–1965 by Dignitatis humanae.

It is also argued, based on the interpretation that the moral right to error is distinct from the legal right, that this principle was not superseded by Dignitatis Humanae.^[8]

Principle

This principle states that non-Catholics must not have any civil or political rights and do not have the right to express publicly any religion outside of Catholicism, however they had the right to privately profess and practice any religion; moreover, this principle states that Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by the State.^[9]^[10]^[11]

It was also argued that the principle meant that although error had no rights, people in error had rights.^[12]^[4] In this interpretation, the state only suppresses those errors which are a danger to public safety rather all things it identifies as errors.^[13] It is also suggested that it was a rejection of theological^[3] or moral right rather than a legal right.^[14]

Catholic theology prior to Vatican II held that the ideal was a confessional state unified with the Catholic Church, with the reasoning that the Catholic Church's revealed truth would lead to "perfect justice", and if the state allowed error to be expressed, it would detract from this.^[6] The underpinning of this preference for an absolutist confessional state was the view that error had no rights, and that non-Catholics could or should be persecuted.^[6]^[15]^[16] According to this traditional view, people who were not members of the Catholic Church did not deserve any civil and political rights because they were deemed to be in error.^[10]

To put it simply, this principle flowed "from a whole series of theological and political premises: that individuals are obligated to embrace religious truth; that Catholicism is the one true religion; that religious liberty is to be understood as an empowerment, as the moral right of individuals to profess and practice their beliefs; that 'total care' of the common good [...] is committed to the state; that religious truth is an integral element of this good; and that the state's total care for the common good thus encompasses the care of religion".^[11]

History

For centuries, the Catholic Church maintained close connection to the State and used state coercion (such as the Inquisition) to punish people whom they deemed to be heretics.^[17] In practice, while often persecuted, non-Catholics in Catholic-majority countries were sometimes tolerated, often either because of the personal sensitivities by members of the clergy, or out of hope of converting people to Catholicism.^[6]

In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI released the encyclical Mirari vos, rejecting freedom of the press, religious liberty, and separation of church and state as based on indifferentism. Liberty of conscience, Gregory wrote, was "a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other".^[18] The arguments condemning freedom of religion were reiterated by Pius IX in his 1864 encyclical Quanta cura and the attached Syllabus of Errors.^[15]

The "error has no rights" principle was still the official position of the Catholic Church in the 1950s.^[9] At the time, the implementation of the "error has not rights" principle made it so that in Latin America and Southern Europe, where Catholics had power, Protestants suffered religious persecutions as they had no rights due to their religious choice.^[19]

Superseding

The American Catholic theologian John Courtney Murray worked throughout the 1950s to reconcile Catholic teachings with religious pluralism and democracy. His ideas encountered significant resistance from more traditional-minded Catholics, but were supported by bishop Karol Wojtyla, the future Pope John Paul II, at Vatican II. John Courtney Murray's ideas were eventually included in the Vatican II reforms as the Declaration on Religious Liberty, a.k.a. Dignitatis humanae (1965).^[9]^[5]^[7] According to this view, further elaborated upon, yet consistent with prior Church teaching, in Dignitatis Humanae, people do have rights even if they are considered in error.^[7] "[Joseph C. Fenton's] most important public controversy was with the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray over the latter's unorthodox interpretation of church teaching on church-state relations. Murray's dissenting position was adopted in the Declaration of Religious Freedom at Vatican Council II in 1964, and Fenton's positions have been eclipsed".^[20]

Dignitatis humanae keeps the theological premises of the "error has no rights" principle, but "implicitly modifies the political theory underlying it. To begin with, it distinguishes between the common good in toto and that 'component' of this good which is entrusted in a 'special' manner to the state, affirming that the care of the common good devolves not upon the state alone, but 'upon the people as a whole, upon social groups, upon government, and upon the Church and other religious communities ... in the manner proper to each'. Secondly, it distinguishes between the moral and juridical dimensions of religious liberty, between the question of our obligations toward religious truth, and the question of the role of the state in enforcing these obligations. Finally, it brings into play the whole subject of the implications of our dignity as persons—as beings who possess intelligence and freedom—for the pursuit of religious truth and ordering of human social life".^[11]

After Vatican II, some Catholic leaders such as Cardinal Józef Glemp and part of the Spanish Church hierarchy still sympathized with the older "error has no rights" approach. However, they realized that it was inconsistent with developments in the world at large and therefore supported counter-proselytization rather than legal restrictions on non-Catholic religions.^[21] Traditionalist Catholics such as Society of St. Pius X have rejected the Vatican II reforms, especially their teaching on religious liberty.^[7]

References

^ "Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung". H. Böhlaus Nacht. October 2, 1978 – via Google Books.
^ Zecha, G.; Weingartner, P. (December 6, 2012). Conscience: An Interdisciplinary View: Salzburg Colloquium on Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9789400938212 – via Google Books.
^ ^a ^b Patrick W. Carey (2004). Orestes A. Brownson: American Religious Weathervane. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 255. ISBN 9780802843005.
^ ^a ^b Daniel Agatino (2018). Mere Catholicism: Faith in the Third Millennium. Sunbury Press. p. 245. ISBN 9781620066850.
^ ^a ^b Cogley, John (8 December 1965). "Freedom of Religion; Vatican Decree Supplants Ancient Doctrine That 'Error Has No Rights'". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 September 2020.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Pawlikowski, John T. (1979). "Human Rights in the Roman Catholic Tradition: Some Theological Reflections". Selected Papers from the Annual Meeting (American Society of Christian Ethics): 145–166. doi:10.5840/selpapasce19797. JSTOR 23564895.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Whitehead, Kenneth D. (2012). "Martin Rhonheimer, Changing the World: The Timeliness of Opus Dei". Catholic Social Science Review. 17: 298–301. doi:10.5840/cssr20121724.
^ Ronald J. Rychlak (2015). American Law from a Catholic Perspective: Through a Clearer Lens. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 101. ISBN 9780810889187.
^ ^a ^b ^c Hertzke, Allen D. (2005). "Roman Catholicism and the Faith-based Movement for Global Human Rights". The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 3 (3): 19–24. doi:10.1080/15570274.2005.9523222. S2CID 144921864.
^ ^a ^b Pawlikowski, John T. (1989). "Catholicism and the Public Church: Recent U.S. Developments". The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics. 9: 147–165. doi:10.5840/asce198999. ISSN 0732-4928. JSTOR 23559453.
^ ^a ^b ^c Grasso, Kenneth L.; Hunt, Robert P. (2005-12-01). "Dignitatis Humanae and the Catholic Human Rights Revolution". The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 3 (3): 3–10. doi:10.1080/15570274.2005.9523220. ISSN 1557-0274. S2CID 143611920.
^ Jay Newman (1991). On Religious Freedom. University of Ottawa Press. ISBN 9780776603087.
^ Eugene J. McCarthy (2004). Parting Shots from My Brittle Bow: Reflections on American Politics and Life. Fulcrum Publishing. p. 28. ISBN 9781555915285.
^ Michael J. White (1997). Partisan Or Neutral?: The Futility of Public Political Theory. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 148–9. ISBN 9780847684540.
^ ^a ^b FitzPatrick, Paul (2013). "Review of Catholicism and Democracy: An Essay in the History of Political Thought". The Furrow. 64 (10): 573–576. ISSN 0016-3120. JSTOR 24635791.
^ Russell, Frederick H. (1975). The Just War in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-521-29276-4.
^ "Does Inquisition Belong to Religious History?". The American Historical Review. February 2005. doi:10.1086/ahr/110.1.11.
^ Carey, Patrick W. (1989). "American Catholics and the First Amendment: 1776–1840". The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. 113 (3): 323–346. ISSN 0031-4587. JSTOR 20092357.
^ Kuzmič, Peter (December 2004). "To Suffer with Our Lord: Christian Responses to Religious Persecution". The Brandywine Review of Faith & International Affairs. 2 (3): 35–42. doi:10.1080/15435725.2004.9523192. ISSN 1543-5725. S2CID 145623036.
^ White, M. Joseph (1989). "Part III: Roman direction, 1910 to 1962 – 14. Catholic University Reform and Influence". The Diocesan Seminary in the United States: A History from the 1780s to the Present. Univ. of Notre Dame Press. p. 333. ISBN 0-268-00865-5. OCLC 260209337.
^ Anderson, John (2003). "Catholicism and democratic consolidation in Spain and Poland". West European Politics. 26 (1): 137–156. doi:10.1080/01402380412331300237. S2CID 153688457.

[1] "Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung". H. Böhlaus Nacht. October 2, 1978 – via Google Books.

[2] Zecha, G.; Weingartner, P. (December 6, 2012). Conscience: An Interdisciplinary View: Salzburg Colloquium on Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9789400938212 – via Google Books.

[pat-3] Patrick W. Carey (2004). Orestes A. Brownson: American Religious Weathervane. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 255. ISBN 9780802843005.

[dan-4] Daniel Agatino (2018). Mere Catholicism: Faith in the Third Millennium. Sunbury Press. p. 245. ISBN 9781620066850.

[nyt-5] Cogley, John (8 December 1965). "Freedom of Religion; Vatican Decree Supplants Ancient Doctrine That 'Error Has No Rights'". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 September 2020.

[1979P-6] Pawlikowski, John T. (1979). "Human Rights in the Roman Catholic Tradition: Some Theological Reflections". Selected Papers from the Annual Meeting (American Society of Christian Ethics): 145–166. doi:10.5840/selpapasce19797. JSTOR 23564895.

[Whitehead-7] Whitehead, Kenneth D. (2012). "Martin Rhonheimer, Changing the World: The Timeliness of Opus Dei". Catholic Social Science Review. 17: 298–301. doi:10.5840/cssr20121724.

[8] Ronald J. Rychlak (2015). American Law from a Catholic Perspective: Through a Clearer Lens. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 101. ISBN 9780810889187.

[Hertzke-9] Hertzke, Allen D. (2005). "Roman Catholicism and the Faith-based Movement for Global Human Rights". The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 3 (3): 19–24. doi:10.1080/15570274.2005.9523222. S2CID 144921864.

[:0-10] Pawlikowski, John T. (1989). "Catholicism and the Public Church: Recent U.S. Developments". The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics. 9: 147–165. doi:10.5840/asce198999. ISSN 0732-4928. JSTOR 23559453.

[:2-11] Grasso, Kenneth L.; Hunt, Robert P. (2005-12-01). "Dignitatis Humanae and the Catholic Human Rights Revolution". The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 3 (3): 3–10. doi:10.1080/15570274.2005.9523220. ISSN 1557-0274. S2CID 143611920.

[12] Jay Newman (1991). On Religious Freedom. University of Ottawa Press. ISBN 9780776603087.

[13] Eugene J. McCarthy (2004). Parting Shots from My Brittle Bow: Reflections on American Politics and Life. Fulcrum Publishing. p. 28. ISBN 9781555915285.

[14] Michael J. White (1997). Partisan Or Neutral?: The Futility of Public Political Theory. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 148–9. ISBN 9780847684540.

[review-15] FitzPatrick, Paul (2013). "Review of Catholicism and Democracy: An Essay in the History of Political Thought". The Furrow. 64 (10): 573–576. ISSN 0016-3120. JSTOR 24635791.

[:1-16] Russell, Frederick H. (1975). The Just War in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-521-29276-4.

[17] "Does Inquisition Belong to Religious History?". The American Historical Review. February 2005. doi:10.1086/ahr/110.1.11.

[18] Carey, Patrick W. (1989). "American Catholics and the First Amendment: 1776–1840". The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. 113 (3): 323–346. ISSN 0031-4587. JSTOR 20092357.

[19] Kuzmič, Peter (December 2004). "To Suffer with Our Lord: Christian Responses to Religious Persecution". The Brandywine Review of Faith & International Affairs. 2 (3): 35–42. doi:10.1080/15435725.2004.9523192. ISSN 1543-5725. S2CID 145623036.

[20] White, M. Joseph (1989). "Part III: Roman direction, 1910 to 1962 – 14. Catholic University Reform and Influence". The Diocesan Seminary in the United States: A History from the 1780s to the Present. Univ. of Notre Dame Press. p. 333. ISBN 0-268-00865-5. OCLC 260209337.

[21] Anderson, John (2003). "Catholicism and democratic consolidation in Spain and Poland". West European Politics. 26 (1): 137–156. doi:10.1080/01402380412331300237. S2CID 153688457.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{short description|Historic Catholic principle}}{{Integralism|aspects}}
+"'''Error has no rights'''" ({{Langx|la|Error non habet ius}}<ref>{{Cite web|date=October 2, 1978|title=Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sPtQAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Error+non+habet+ius%22|publisher=H. Böhlaus Nacht.|via=Google Books}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_a7vCAAAQBAJ&q=%22Error+non+habet+ius%22&pg=PA255|title=Conscience: An Interdisciplinary View: Salzburg Colloquium on Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities|first1=G.|last1=Zecha|first2=P.|last2=Weingartner|date=December 6, 2012|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=9789400938212|via=Google Books}}</ref>) is a historical [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] and [[traditionalist Catholic]] principle. It asserts that it is the responsibility of governments to suppress non-Catholic religions as  they do not have a right to [[Freedom of religion|express publicly any religion]] outside of Catholicism which should be the only religion allowed by the [[State (polity)|State]], but had the right to privately profess and practice any religion. Alternatively, it asserts that while non-Catholics had [[Civil and political rights|civil or political rights]], there is no theological toleration for such religious beliefs.<ref name=pat>{{cite book |last1=Patrick W. Carey |title=Orestes A. Brownson: American Religious Weathervane |date=2004 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |isbn=9780802843005 |page=255}}</ref><ref name=dan>{{cite book |last1=Daniel Agatino |title=Mere Catholicism: Faith in the Third Millennium |date=2018 |publisher=Sunbury Press |isbn=9781620066850 |page=245}}</ref> It was still the official position of the Catholic Church in the 1950s, and was repudiated<ref name="nyt" /><ref name="1979P">{{cite journal|last1=Pawlikowski|first1=John T.|date=1979|title=Human Rights in the Roman Catholic Tradition: Some Theological Reflections|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23564895|journal=Selected Papers from the Annual Meeting (American Society of Christian Ethics)|language=en|pages=145–166|doi=10.5840/selpapasce19797|jstor=23564895}}</ref> or superseded<ref name="Whitehead" /> in the [[Second Vatican Council]] of 1962–1965 by ''[[Dignitatis humanae]]''.
-"'''Error has no rights'''"  (Latin: error non habet jus) is the position of the [[Catholic Church|Catholic Church]] concerning how people in error ought to be treated. It posits that, while the people in error retain their rights that follow from their human dignity (primary rights), especially freedom from coercion, they do not enjoy certain rights which are not intrinsic to human dignity (secondary rights), namely, the right to spread their error publicly. The position that the errant do have a right to spread their error is the sense of [[Freedom of religion|religious freedom]] which was consistently condemned by the Church, especially in the 19th century by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, Pope Bl. Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors, and Pope Leo XIII in encyclicals such as Libertas and Diuturnum. The Church clarified this distinction in the mid-20th century, with Pope St. John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris and the Second Vatican Council’s document Dignitatis Humanæ, emphasizing the rights retained by the individual in error, while not opposing the Church’s tradition.
+It is also argued, based on the interpretation that the moral right to error is distinct from the legal right, that this principle was not superseded by ''Dignitatis Humanae''.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Ronald J. Rychlak |title=American Law from a Catholic Perspective: Through a Clearer Lens |date=2015 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=9780810889187 |page=101}}</ref>
-== Error and errant ==
-The distinction between the error and the errant, or the person in error, is the foundation of the principle. Pope St. John XXIII writes:
+== Principle ==
-“It is always perfectly justifiable to distinguish between error as such and the person who falls into error—even in the case of men who err regarding the truth or are led astray as a result of their inadequate knowledge, in matters either of religion or of the highest ethical standards. A man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man. He never forfeits his personal dignity; and that is something that must always be taken into account.” (Pacem in Terris, 158)
+This principle states that non-Catholics must not have any civil or political rights and do not have the right to [[Freedom of religion|express publicly any religion]] outside of Catholicism, however they had the right to privately profess and practice any religion; moreover, this principle states that Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by the [[State (polity)|State]].<ref name="Hertzke">{{cite journal|last1=Hertzke|first1=Allen D.|date=2005|title=Roman Catholicism and the Faith-based Movement for Global Human Rights|journal=The Review of Faith & International Affairs|volume=3|issue=3|pages=19–24|doi=10.1080/15570274.2005.9523222|s2cid=144921864}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last1=Pawlikowski|first1=John T.|date=1989|title=Catholicism and the Public Church: Recent U.S. Developments|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23559453|journal=The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics|volume=9|pages=147–165|doi=10.5840/asce198999|issn=0732-4928|jstor=23559453}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Grasso|first1=Kenneth L.|last2=Hunt|first2=Robert P.|date=2005-12-01|title=Dignitatis Humanae and the Catholic Human Rights Revolution|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2005.9523220|journal=The Review of Faith & International Affairs|volume=3|issue=3|pages=3–10|doi=10.1080/15570274.2005.9523220|s2cid=143611920 |issn=1557-0274}}</ref>
+It was also argued that the principle meant that although error had no rights, people in error had rights.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Jay Newman |title=On Religious Freedom |date=1991 |publisher=University of Ottawa Press |isbn=9780776603087}}</ref><ref name=dan/> In this interpretation, the state only suppresses those errors which are a danger to public safety rather all things it identifies as errors.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Eugene J. McCarthy |title=Parting Shots from My Brittle Bow: Reflections on American Politics and Life |date=2004 |publisher=Fulcrum Publishing |isbn=9781555915285 |page=28}}</ref> It is also suggested that it was a rejection of theological<ref name=pat/> or moral right rather than a legal right.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Michael J. White |title=Partisan Or Neutral?: The Futility of Public Political Theory |date=1997 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=9780847684540 |pages=148–9}}</ref>
-Here he makes the same distinction. The errant retain their humanity and their dignity, and all of the rights which follow from their dignity. Nevertheless, the error does not enjoy the same status. Error, as opposed to truth, does not have the same right to be spread. Hence Pope Gregory XVI taught:
+[[Catholic theology]] prior to Vatican II held that the ideal was a [[confessional state]] unified with the Catholic Church, with the reasoning that the Catholic Church's revealed truth would lead to "perfect justice", and if the state allowed error to be expressed, it would detract from this.<ref name="1979P" /> The underpinning of this preference for an absolutist confessional state was the view that error had no rights, and that non-Catholics could or should be persecuted.<ref name="1979P" /><ref name="review">{{cite journal|last1=FitzPatrick|first1=Paul|date=2013|title=Review of Catholicism and Democracy: An Essay in the History of Political Thought|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24635791|journal=The Furrow|volume=64|issue=10|pages=573–576|issn=0016-3120|jstor=24635791}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{cite book|last1=Russell|first1=Frederick H.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EZYVf8h6YekC&q=Augustine+religious+persecution&pg=PA23|title=The Just War in the Middle Ages|date=1975|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-29276-4|page=23|language=en}}</ref> According to this traditional view, people who were not members of the Catholic Church did not deserve any [[civil and political rights]] because they were deemed to be in error.<ref name=":0" />
-“Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth.” (Mirari Vos, 15)
+To put it simply, this principle flowed "from a whole series of [[theological]] and [[Political philosophy|political]] premises: that individuals are obligated to embrace religious truth; that Catholicism is the one true religion; that religious liberty is to be understood as an empowerment, as the moral right of individuals to profess and practice their beliefs; that 'total care' of the [[common good]] [...] is committed to the state; that religious truth is an integral element of this good; and that the state's total care for the common good thus encompasses the care of religion".<ref name=":2" />
-And again:
+==History==
-“The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books.” (ibid., 16)
+For centuries, the Catholic Church maintained close connection to the State and used state coercion (such as [[the Inquisition]]) to punish people whom they deemed to be [[heretics]].<ref>{{cite journal|date=February 2005|title=Does Inquisition Belong to Religious History?|journal=The American Historical Review|doi=10.1086/ahr/110.1.11|doi-access=free}}</ref> In practice, while often persecuted, non-Catholics in Catholic-majority countries were sometimes tolerated, often either because of the personal sensitivities by members of the clergy, or out of hope of converting people to Catholicism.<ref name="1979P" />
+In 1832, Pope [[Gregory XVI]] released the encyclical {{lang|la|[[Mirari vos]]}}, rejecting [[freedom of the press]], [[religious liberty]], and [[separation of church and state]] as based on [[indifferentism]]. Liberty of conscience, Gregory wrote, was "a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Carey |first1=Patrick W. |title=American Catholics and the First Amendment: 1776–1840 |journal=The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography |date=1989 |volume=113 |issue=3 |pages=323–346 |jstor=20092357 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20092357 |issn=0031-4587}}</ref> The arguments condemning freedom of religion were reiterated by [[Pius IX]] in his 1864 encyclical ''[[Quanta cura]]'' and the attached ''[[Syllabus of Errors]]''.<ref name="review" />
-These condemnations of modern notions of freedom of expression are founded on the same principle; if the principle is removed, the teachings are irrational and the Church’s teaching is unjustly discriminatory.
-Pope Ven. Pius XII also explicitly states that that which is not in accordance with truth, does not have the right to exist, or even to be spread:
+The "error has no rights" principle was still the official position of the Catholic Church in the 1950s.<ref name="Hertzke" /> At the time, the implementation of the "error has not rights" principle made it so that in [[Latin America]] and [[Southern Europe]], where Catholics had power,  [[Protestants]] suffered [[religious persecution]]s as they had no rights due to their religious choice.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kuzmič|first=Peter|title=To Suffer with Our Lord: Christian Responses to Religious Persecution |date=December 2004|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15435725.2004.9523192|journal=The Brandywine Review of Faith & International Affairs|language=en|volume=2|issue=3|pages=35–42|doi=10.1080/15435725.2004.9523192|s2cid=145623036 |issn=1543-5725}}</ref>
-“That which does not respond to truth and the moral law has objectively neither a right to exist, nor to propagate, nor to act.” (Ci Riesce, 1953)
+==Superseding==
-This, of course, refers to error—seeing as error is “that which does not respond to truth and the moral law”.
+The American Catholic theologian [[John Courtney Murray]] worked throughout the 1950s to reconcile Catholic teachings with [[religious pluralism]] and [[democracy]]. His ideas encountered significant resistance from more traditional-minded Catholics, but were supported by bishop [[Karol Wojtyla]], the future Pope John Paul II, at [[Vatican II]]. John Courtney Murray's ideas were eventually included in the Vatican II reforms as the ''[[Declaration on Religious Liberty]]'', a.k.a. ''Dignitatis humanae'' (1965).<ref name="Hertzke" /><ref name="nyt">{{cite news |last1=Cogley |first1=John |title=Freedom of Religion; Vatican Decree Supplants Ancient Doctrine That 'Error Has No Rights' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1965/12/08/archives/freedom-of-religion-vatican-decree-supplants-ancient-doctrine-that.html |accessdate=21 September 2020 |work=The New York Times |date=8 December 1965}}</ref><ref name="Whitehead" /> According to this view, further elaborated upon, yet consistent with prior Church teaching, in Dignitatis Humanae, people do have rights even if they are considered in error.<ref name="Whitehead" /> "[<nowiki/>[[Joseph Clifford Fenton|Joseph C. Fenton]]'s] most important public controversy was with the [[Jesuit]] theologian John Courtney Murray over the latter's [[Heterodoxy|unorthodox]] interpretation of church teaching on [[Relations between the Catholic Church and the state|church-state relations]]. Murray's dissenting position was adopted in the Declaration of Religious Freedom at Vatican Council II in 1964, and Fenton's positions have been eclipsed".<ref>{{Cite book |last=White |first=M. Joseph |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/diocesanseminary0000whit/page/333/mode/2up |title=The Diocesan Seminary in the United States: A History from the 1780s to the Present |date=1989 |publisher=Univ. of Notre Dame Press |isbn=0-268-00865-5 |pages=333 |chapter=Part III: Roman direction, 1910 to 1962 – 14. Catholic University Reform and Influence |oclc=260209337}}</ref>
-From this distinction between error and errant, the teaching of the Church, clarified in the era of Vatican II, is evident. The errant have rights, to the extent that they have human dignity; they remain humans even in error, and must be afforded the rights which are owed to all humans. Among these primarily is the right to freedom from coercion, that is, the freedom to choose religion and worship God according to one’s conscience. Nevertheless, because their error has no right, their expression of this error must be prohibited by the civil society; hence erroneous books were burned and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
-== Dignitatis Humanæ ==
-The Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanæ declared freedom of religion to be a good thing and a right owed to all people. In light of this, it has been often considered that Dignitatis Humanæ (hereinafter DH) superseded the previous teaching. This, however, ignores the important distinction which is the foundation of the entire teaching, made above by Pope St. John XXIII. In truth, DH spoke about the freedom from coercion as following from man’s dignity. Hence:
-“Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion.” (Dignitatis Humanæ 7)
-Here, the document states that religious liberty is permissible and good only insofar as it is not an abuse; whence it is clear that the document does not speak of total religious liberty, but rather a restricted notion. It is even clearer:
-“The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.” (DH 3)
-From this, it is clear that Pope St. Paul VI refers to the internal assent to religion by “religious freedom”, and not to the right to actually spread this error.
-== Senses of “religious liberty” ==
-From the distinctions above, it is clear that there are two senses of “religious liberty”: first, a freedom from coercion, a freedom to choose a religion and to follow one’s conscience in doing so; second, a freedom to spread one’s religion as if this followed necessarily from and were contained intrinsically within human dignity. The first is a merely negative right, that is, it declares that one is safe from being influenced violently; the second is a positive right, that is, the subject has the power to act in a certain way to other people, in spreading his error. The first is supported by the Church; most clearly in DH, but also during the Middle Ages, when the Popes would condemn bishops for promoting forced baptisms or killings of infidels. The second is condemned by the Church, for the same reason that the Church condemned the absolute right to publish whatever one thought: error has no right to be promulgated.
-==History==
-The Church throughout the Middle Ages did not usually speak of “religious liberty” and distinguish between error and errant, but certainly bore this in mind. In confessional states, the Catholic faith was the only faith permitted to be fully exercised publicly; sometimes other public expressions would be tolerated, but only for the sake of the common good, as St. Thomas writes about in his Summa, speaking especially about the rites of the Jews:
+''Dignitatis humanae'' keeps the theological premises of the "error has no rights" principle, but "implicitly modifies the political theory underlying it. To begin with, it distinguishes between the common good [[in toto]] and that 'component' of this good which is entrusted in a 'special' manner to the state, affirming that the care of the common good devolves not upon the state alone, but 'upon the people as a whole, upon social groups, upon government, and upon the Church and other religious communities ... in the manner proper to each'. Secondly, it distinguishes between the moral and juridical dimensions of religious liberty, between the question of our obligations toward religious truth, and the question of the role of the state in enforcing these obligations. Finally, it brings into play the whole subject of the implications of our dignity as persons—as beings who possess intelligence and freedom—for the pursuit of religious truth and ordering of human social life".<ref name=":2" />
-“Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rites, they may be tolerated, either on account of some good that ensues therefrom, or because of some evil avoided.” (S.Th. IIa IIæ Q10 A11)
+After Vatican II, some Catholic leaders such as Cardinal [[Józef Glemp]] and part of the [[Catholic Church in Spain|Spanish Church]] hierarchy still sympathized with the older "error has no rights" approach. However, they realized that it was inconsistent with developments in the world at large and therefore supported counter-[[proselytization]] rather than legal restrictions on non-Catholic religions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=John |title=Catholicism and democratic consolidation in Spain and Poland |journal=West European Politics |date=2003 |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=137–156 |doi=10.1080/01402380412331300237|s2cid=153688457 }}</ref> [[Traditionalist Catholics]] such as [[Society of St. Pius X]] have rejected the Vatican II reforms, especially their teaching on religious liberty.<ref name=Whitehead>{{cite journal |last1=Whitehead |first1=Kenneth D. |title=Martin Rhonheimer, Changing the World: The Timeliness of Opus Dei |journal=Catholic Social Science Review |date=2012 |volume=17 |pages=298–301 |doi=10.5840/cssr20121724|doi-access=free }}</ref>
-The Popes of this period would also speak out against forced baptisms, of the Jews especially, and thereby upheld religious liberty as a negative right.
 ==See also==