Vatican II- Declaration on religious freedom

Just wanted to bring up a sore topic. Possibly better over in the agnostic/atheist forum, but many of them lurk here, for reasons unbeknowest to a simple man such as I.

If you skip the first 5 paragraphs in which there is a little bible thumping (just cuz the council thinks its way is the best) you get to an interesting part that some people ignore when discussing religion.

The Vatican directed that human beings have a fundamental right and need for religious freedom, in that they are not coerced into their beliefs, but instead pursue these beliefs on their own.

It seems to me that a lot of younger people have the impression of being coerced into a certain belief system under the threat of hell. Doesn't this go against the Vatican Coucels decree?

Do people really threaten others with hell for not following their religion?

I have never been directly threatened by anyone credible, I have only heard from atheists/agnostics who claim that you are threatened with hell if you don't join a church and a few nutball fundies. The majority of church going people I have meet have seemed really mellow, low pressure type of people (unless you show the slightest interest in their church, they are like anyone, talk about what they like and they want you to join their group- talk to a redneck about a hemi, or a geek about your beowulf cluster).

 

A couple of things I'd like to say here.


Firstly, some in the catholic church,esp on th 'liberal' wing, and noteably Hans Kung, formerly lecturer in theology (now banned by the vatican) and close confidante of Pope John XXIII, would claim that since that pontif's death, the church has done nothing but backpedal on the proposed reforms and so on. Esp. under the present pope.

I know that's not strictly addressing your point - but also, my daughter used to have a penfriend in Ireland who was a catholic, and she used to send her nasty little 'tracts', in comic-strip format which did most definitely promise hellfire to 'sinners' 'non-believers' etc. Mag, my daughter, used to have a good laugh over them, (sensible girl) but I found them a bit sinister!

 

Thanks Bill. I'll do a little more research on it when the bug bites me.

 

If you do, I'm sure you'd find Kung's book 'A Short History of the Catholic Church' well worth looking at. Nothing like a critical 'insider'.

 

So in Germany I made those experiences with some groups of the evangelic church. I am Catholic and it seems to me, like the Evangelic are here more fundamentalist than the Catholic. So some groups tell you, you will go to hell, if you are listening to anything that is not classic music, if you are watching TV or having premarital sex.

You were talking about Hans Küng. My professor at university made is Doctor at Hans Küng, so he is telling us much about that man. Küng had some very good ideas, especially the "Project Weltethos", that is dealing with the common ethic values, norms and measures of all religions.
Unfortunately Küng was excluted by the Catholic Church, because he wrote a book with the German titel "Unfehlbar?" which means "inerrable?". It dealed with the inerrability of the pope in questions of the belief.

I also think that the Catholic Church made a big step ahead with the 2.Vatican council, but now rather a step back with the actual pope. But he is not just bad. He made some good global politic statements.

 

you mean nothing like a disgrunteled former member with an axe to grind

 

Not so - Kung, although banned from lecturing is still a catholic priest.

 

islam?, judaism?, and all "religious systems" within 'christianity'?

religious systems of this world and all alike they are,
they have fought and killed near and far;

then once a week or multiples times a day they pray,
and then as hypocrites begin a new day;

a day filled with deceit and lies,
for in their religious systems Truth cannot abide;

and so the fruit of death is born of their religious way,
for life is but a pawn in the wicked game they play!

oh, how it saddens me:-(

because the "Way of Truth", The Life example and
teachings of The Messiah "are spoken of as evil"
because of the religious harlot that calls herself
'christianity', she who is but the bastard daughter
of 'catholicism'.

yet while there is breath(spirit) there is hope for
all caught up in a "religious system" that is
of this wicked, evil world.

hope that they would "set their affections on
things above" so they might escape from the
prison of "strong delusion" that is 'christianity'
and have:

peace, even as war(spiritual and carnal) rages....... www.ASpiritualJourney.Org

 

The same thing is true here - often protestants are more fundamentalist in their approach than catholics.

I have a great respect for Kung. He is actually one of the few contemporary catholic writers who I do like. I respect his honesty, his genuine desire for reform, and his willingness to speak out against error and fallacy as he sees it.

Kung is not actually excluded from the church, and he continues as a catholic priest, but has been banned from lecturing or teaching.

The present pope has been backward in many ways, and overall I don't think he's taken the church in the right direction.
But even so, I think he will go down in history as an important pope, as he presided over the collapse of communism (although I think his influence in actually helping to bring it down has been exaggerated).
Where Kung sees him departing from Vatican II is in his centralization of power, in maintaining the system of the Curia only electing the Pope, and in excluding bishops, priests and laity from actively inputing into church policies etc.

 

I do not know very very much about htis subject, so please correct me wherever I make a mistake, but I heard that the present pope has urged the church throughout the 90's to take up her true biblical mission: to evangelise into the world, and to start evangelising the church itself first.

At least that is what I heard when I was amongst catholics in Lithuania. I heard of fransiscan monks playing soccer with streetkids. I saw worship bands in front of catholic churches with beamers to project the texts of worship songs on the wall. So what about that?

 

Not saying that the present pope has done nothing good. Just that he hasn't implemented the reforms set out in Vatican II, esp. where de-centralizing power is concerned.


Why decentralize ? Because the history of the catholic church shows clearly the way in which successive popes over the centuries have assililated more and more a kind of 'absolute' power. This culminated in the 19th century when the pope was declared officially 'infallible' when speaking ex-cathedra. There is no basis in scripture for this. And it's a position that is really not tenable, as illuistrated by JP II's apologies for abuses against muslims, women etc. If the pope who launched the crusades was infallible, then this apology can have no meaning. Two popes saying opposite things can't both be infallible.

Also, this pope is undoubtedly a right-winger and a very died in the wool traditionalist, as shown by his support of Opus Dei, an extreme right wing group within the catholic church who have risen to great prominence during JP II's pontificate.

 

don`t know, if I understood you right, my English is not that good, but I thought, the dogma is that the pope is just unfailable in questions of beliefs and not in sociopolitical questions (like women...)

 

Perhaps you are right, but still the whole idea of infalibility seems a little bit spurious. It would mean that no pope could ever contradict what a previous pope had said (within the prescribed limits of 'infalibility').

But I think my other points are valid.

 

Actually they can. The world might need the pope to support a cause at one point and at another point it is better for the world when the pope says that it is wrong to support the cause (or if the pope apologizes for supporting the cause).

 

In questions of beilief it's hard to see how that could be...since the idea is that 'God is the same to-day, tommorrow and yesterday'. What held for one time period would hold good for all others. Eternal verities and all that.......

That would only apply where theological issues were involved though, as Heaven pointed out, 'infallibility' doesn't apply to socio-political matters.

But logically, how can two infallible beings contradict each other.....dammned if I know.

 

However, we mortals are not the same to-day, tomorrow and yesterday, so it is not appropriate for us to be treated the same to-day, tomorrow and yesterday. One day it could be good for us to be told one thing, the next day it could be good for us to hear the opposite. Even though 2 statements contradict eachother, they are the correct statements for us to hear when they are made.

Damned if I don't.

 

I agree with you - but the church says it's appropriate to believe now exactly what we were supposed to believe say 500 years ago.
All I am saying here really is that the doctrine of papal infalibility seems to me to be a nonsense.

 

you obviously mis-understand the concept of infallibility, it only applies to matters regarding the nature of god and morality, not civil issues. the pope who launched the crusades (pope urban the second i believe) did so in the spirit of helping the byzantine christians fight of its musslim invaders and freeing the land of palestine, but enevitably greedy kings and princes from europe made the crusades into something it wasnt intended to be. and the concept of papla infallbility isnt anything new, it was in place from the begining of the church, it was only written down in a formular in the 19th century to prevent papla abuse of power in regards to civil matters while at the same time trying to maintain the authority of the pope at a time of the spread of new hearesys like those of modern day evangelicalism.

i dont know how you can really say he's right-winger, he opposes the death penalty as well as abortion and the war in iraq. he has made more attempts than any of his predecesors in normalizing relations with the protestant community, actively pursueing the goal of re-establishing communion with the orthodox churches. he traveled all around the world in a show connection with the people, from visiting children with aids in africa to blessing lepars in korea, he's the most traveled pope in history.

 

The church saying this causes people to leave the church and seek God for themselves. How can this be considered incorrect? It's like a mother bear driving it's cubs away so they learn to fend for themselves. The mother loves it's cubs, but knows that they must be driven away if it and it's cubs are to survive. Momma bear acts nutty, the cubs leave while grumbling WTF under their breath, sayin' momma bears gone nuts, when all along it was a ploy to turn the little cubs into fully functional bears.

 

OK - explain to me the doctrine of Papal inflibility.

But on the crusades(ie the crusades in the Holy Land), I think it's very far from clear that the motives were all purely religious. It served a number of other purposes for europe at that time.

I say he is a right winger because of two things. First, his anti-jesuit (ie left wing) stance and his favoring Opus Dei.
Second, because of his anti socialist stance on a political level since taking office. I don't give him much credit though, as some (Fukayama etc) do for bringing down the soviet bloc.

But I agree, he has done good things too, as I said in my earlier post. I don't doubt that he is a good and sincere man, I just don't like his political side either inside or outside church matters. I would prefer another John XXIII.