Error has no rights: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Removing erroneous claim that the principle has been repudiated |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Traditional Catholic principle}} |
{{short description|Traditional Catholic principle}} |
||
"'''Error has no rights'''" ({{Lang-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 the |
"'''Error has no rights'''" ({{Lang-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 the [[Roman Catholic|Catholic]] principle that non-Roman Catholics must not have any [[Civil and political rights|civil or political rights]] and do not have the right to [[Freedom of religion|express publicly any religion]] outside of Roman Catholicism, but had the right to privately profess and practice any religion; moreover, this principle states that Roman Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by the [[State (polity)|State]]. |
||
== Principle == |
== Principle == |
||
This principle states that non-Roman 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 Roman Catholicism, however they had the right to privately profess and practice any religion; moreover, this principle states that Roman 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|last=Grasso|first=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|issn=1557-0274}}</ref> |
This principle states that non-Roman 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 Roman Catholicism, however they had the right to privately profess and practice any religion; moreover, this principle states that Roman 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|last=Grasso|first=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|issn=1557-0274}}</ref> |
||
| Line 15: | Line 14: | ||
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|religious persecutions]] as they had no rights due to their religious choice.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kuzmič|first=Peter|date=December 2004|title=TO SUFFER WITH OUR LORD: CHRISTIAN RESPONSES TO RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION|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|issn=1543-5725}}</ref> |
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|religious persecutions]] as they had no rights due to their religious choice.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kuzmič|first=Peter|date=December 2004|title=TO SUFFER WITH OUR LORD: CHRISTIAN RESPONSES TO RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION|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|issn=1543-5725}}</ref> |
||
==Repudiation== |
|||
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]] 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 the new view, 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=M.|first=White, Joseph|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/260209337|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|oclc=260209337}}</ref> |
|||
''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" /> |
''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" /> |
||
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> |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 00:27, 24 February 2022
"Error has no rights" (Template:Lang-la[1][2]) is the Catholic principle that non-Roman Catholics must not have any civil or political rights and do not have the right to express publicly any religion outside of Roman Catholicism, but had the right to privately profess and practice any religion; moreover, this principle states that Roman Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by the State.
Principle
This principle states that non-Roman Catholics must not have any civil or political rights and do not have the right to express publicly any religion outside of Roman Catholicism, however they had the right to privately profess and practice any religion; moreover, this principle states that Roman Catholicism should be the only religion allowed by the State.[3][4][5]
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][7][8] 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.[4]
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."[5]
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.[9] 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".[10] The arguments condemning freedom of religion were reiterated by Pius IX in his 1864 Syllabus of Errors.[7]
The "error has no rights" principle was still the official position of the Catholic Church in the 1950s.[3] 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.[11]
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."[5]
See also
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 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.
- ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference
1979Pwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ 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.