|
Appendix
IV
Mgr. Lefebvre's
opponents have accused him of rejecting the documents of Vatican
II. The truth is that he signed fourteen of the sixteen documents
and declined to sign two. The first of these, the Pastoral Constitution
on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), does
not directly contradict Catholic teaching but is so uncatholic in
its ethos that it is hard to understand how any self-respecting
bishop could have put his signature to it. A few of the deficiencies
of this document can be discovered by referring to the entry Gaudium
et Spes in the index of Pope John's Council.
Mgr. Lefebvre
also refused to sign the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis
Humanae). In this case his objections were doctrinal. The documents
of Vatican II come within the category of the Church's Ordinary
Magisterium which can contain error in the case of a novelty which
conflicts with previous teaching.1
The Declaration contains a number of statements which it is not
easy to reconcile with traditional papal teaching and in Article
2 there are two words, "or publicly," which appear to
be a direct contradiction of previous teaching.
Paul H. Hallett
of the National Catholic Register is probably America's most respected
and erudite Catholic lay- journalist. On 3 July 1977 he noted that:
The Declaration
on Religious Liberty is not a statement of faith. Neither does
it appeal to the traditional teaching of the Church on religious
freedom. Hence it is not disloyalty to faith to seek a clarification
of its ambiguities. Nothing is gained by pretending that they
do not exist.
Mr. Hallett
then went on to examine some of the unsatisfactory passages in the
Declaration and concluded that "it is necessary that some things
be made clearer and more in accord with tradition than they have
been in the Religious Liberty Declaration." Unfortunately,
the majority of Mgr Lefebvre's critics, including "conservative
Catholics, have been so eager to denounce the Archbishop that they
made no attempt to examine his case. Had they followed Mr. Hallett's
example they would have found that there is good deal to be said
in favor of the Archbishop's position, and not only on the religious
liberty issue. However, strident denunciations cost far less effort
than careful research.
Pope Leo XIII
warned in his encyclical Libertas Humana that there are certain
so-called liberties which modern society takes for granted that
every man possesses as a right. This is due to the fact that Liberals
have been so successful in promoting their doctrines that some of
their basic tenets are now accepted as self-evident truths even
by Catholics. The essence of Liberalism is that the individual human
being has the right to decide for himself the norms by which he
will regulate his life. He has the right to be his own arbiter as
to what is right and what is wrong. He is under no obligation to
subject himself to any external authority. In the Liberal sense,
liberty of conscience is the right of an individual to think and
believe whatever he wants, even in religion and morality; to express
his views publicly and persuade others to adopt them by using word
of mouth, the public press, or any other means. The only limitation
to be placed upon him is that he should refrain from causing a breach
of public order. This means that the state must grant equal rights
to all religions.
Pope Leo XIII
condemned this theory in Libertas Humana when he taught that
reason itself forbids the state “to adopt a line of action which
would end in godlessness - namely to treat the various religions
(as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously
equal rights and privileges." Thus, a state in which Catholicism
was the religion of the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants
should be a Catholic state. In such a state civil law should be
based upon the law of God, religious ceremonies at state functions
should be conducted in accordance with the Catholic liturgy, and
the Catholic Church should be given a privileged status in such
spheres as education. This is because all authority is derived from
God. Pope Leo XIII wrote in lmmortale Dei:
For God alone
is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything, without
exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve Him, so that
whosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and
single source, namely God, the Sovereign Ruler of all.
This is the
teaching that forms the basis of the papal condemnation of democracy
in the sense that this word is used today. The Popes have condemned
democracy if by that term it is meant that those who govern do so
as delegates of the people, that authority derives from the people,
and that the law of the state must reflect what the majority of
the people desires. According to this view, if the majority of the
people wishes to permit divorce, abortion, euthanasia, or the sale
of pornography, then the laws of the state must be adjusted accordingly.
The teaching of the Church, as has just been shown in the quotation
from lmmortale Dei, is that authority is derived from God
and that those who govern do so as His delegates. The Church is
not opposed to democracy in the sense that the people choose those
who govern them by means of a vote based on national suffrage. The
Church is not committed to any particular form of government. She
will co-operate with an absolute monarch or a parliamentary democracy.
What She insists upon is that those who govern, however they are
chosen, exercise their authority in accordance with the law of God,
which no individual and no state can possibly have a right to violate.
Given that God is, as Pope Leo XIII taught, "the Sovereign
Ruler of all," the idea that a breach of His law can be a right
and not an abuse is nonsensical. All men are subject to the power
of Jesus Christ. Commenting on this in his encyclical Quas Primas,
Pope Pius XI explained:
Nor is there
any difference in this matter between the individual and the family
or the state; for all men, whether individually or collectively,
are under the dominion of Christ. In Him is the salvation of the
individual, in Him is the salvation of Society.
Given the existence
of a Catholic state, there arises the question of the correct attitude
of the civil authorities to minority religions. Writing in the September
1950 issue of the American Ecclesiastical Review, Mgr. George
W. Shea explained:
Before another
word is said on this subject, let it be noted at once that no
Catholic holds or may hold that the state would be called upon
to impose the Catholic faith on dissident citizens. Reverence
for the individual conscience forbids this, and the very nature
of religion and of the act of faith. If these be not voluntary
they are nought.
It is a fundamental
principle of Catholic theology that no one must ever be forced to
act against his conscience either in public or private (unfortunately
this principle has not always been respected in the history of the
Church). It is equally true that no one must be prevented from acting
in accordance with, his conscience in private (providing that no
breach of the natural law is involved). Thus, for the most part,
a policy of toleration towards the Jews was followed in the papal
states. Jews were allowed to meet together for private worship but
were not allowed to hold ceremonies in public or to proselytize
among Catholics.2 This
last point brings us to the crucial issue in this appendix , i.
e. that it has been the consistent teaching of the Popes that a
Catholic state has the right to restrict the public expression of
heresy . Thus, in a Catholic state, members of a Protestant sect
could not be compelled to assist at Mass but they could be prevented
from holding outdoor services, putting up notices outside their
places of worship designating them as such, or advertising their
services. This was the case in Malta when I served there with the
British Army. Protestant ministers were not so much as allowed to
wear a Roman collar in the street- a ruling which even applied to
military chaplains. Similarly, in a Catholic state, a Protestant
could not be compelled to profess belief in transubstantiation but
could be prevented from attacking the doctrine in public, either
by the written or the spoken word. Thus Father Francis J. Connell,
C.SS.R., explained in 1949:
Hence, just
as the state can prohibit people from preaching the doctrine of
free love, so it can prohibt them from preaching, to the detriment
of Catholic citizens, the doctrine that Christ is not present
in the Holy Eucharist.3
Father Connell
also pointed out that although Catholic states had the right to
repress heresy this was not a duty. Where a large minority religion
existed within a Catholic state more harm than good might result
from attempting to limit the public expression of heresy .In such
cases heresy would be tolerated as the lesser of two evils, e. g.
to avoid the type of civil war which occurred in attempting to suppress
Protestantism in France. However, the distinction between what is
tolerated and what is a right is both obvious and
important.
To sum up,
the consensus of papal teaching is that a Catholic state has the
right but not the obligation to restrict the public expression of
heresy. Where repression would cause more harm than good, toleration
is the better policy. The criterion which Catholic rulers must use
in deciding their policy towards religious minorities is the common
good. The purpose of civil society is to promote the common temporal
good of its citizens-that is, the good of its citizens in the present
life. But in view of the elevation of man to the supernatural life
the common good must take account of man's supernatural destiny.
Hence, a Catholic government must do all in its power to assist
its citizens to observe the supernatural law of Christ. This can
include measures to protect them from exposure to heresy or immorality.
Liberals claim that any citizen has the right to propagate his views
by any outlet of the media providing this does not result in a breach
of public order. Paul Hallett noted that this can have too restricted
a meaning. In his article of 3 July 1977 he noted:
It could
and should include protection against anything that seriously
threatens the welfare of the people. Thus a truly Christian state
would repress the televising of a play denying the divinity of
Christ, even though no palpable disturbance resulted.
In his encyclical
of 1864, Quanta Cura, Pius IX reprimanded those who, "contrary
to the teaching of Holy Scripture and the Fathers, deliberately
affirm that the best form of government is that in which no obligation
is recognized in the civil power to punish, with specific penalties,
the violators of the Catholic religion, save insofar as the public
peace demands."
There are few
Catholic countries today in which any attempt to restrict the public
expression of heresy would not do more harm than good but this does
not change the fact that a Catholic government has the right to
take such action where the common good demands it. Father Connell
writes:
But it is
fully within their [civil rulers] right to restrict and to prevent
public functions and activities of false religions which are likely
to be detrimental to the spiritual welfare of the Catholic citizens
or insulting to the true religion of Christ. Nowadays, it is true,
greater evils would often follow such a course of action than
would ensue if complete tolerance were granted; but the principle
is immutable.4
(My emphasis.)
The Church
has frequently been accused of observing double standards by claiming
the same rights as other religions in such countries as the U.S.
A. where She is in a minority and demanding a privileged status
in such countries as Malta or Spain where She is in the majority.
Even those who do not accept Her claim to be the One True Church
should at least be able to see that, in virtue of this claim, Her
attitude is consistent and is based upon the rights of truth. Pope
Pius XII taught in his discourse Ecco che gia un anno, of
6 October 1946, that
The Catholic
Church, as we have already said, is a perfect society and has
as its foundation the truth of Faith infallibly revealed by God.
For this reason, that which is opposed to this truth is, necessarily,
an error, and the same rights which are objectively recognized
for truth cannot be afforded to error. In this manner, liberty
of thought and liberty of conscience have their essential limits
in the truthfulness of God in Revelation.
This principle
that "error has no rights" has been attacked by Liberals,
Father John Courtney Murray in particular, on the grounds that error
is an abstraction and hence cannot have rights. It was claimed that
as only persons or institutions could have rights the formula "error
has no rights is meaningless." This argument is not simply
specious, it is silly. Father Connell demolished it in an article
in the American Ecclesiastical Review in 1964:
Some have
tried to argue that while error has no rights, persons inculpably
holding erroneous doctrines have the right to hold them. But it
must be borne in mind that error can be believed, spread, and
activated only by persons and so it is difficult to see what it
would mean to say "error has no right to be spread"
if one held at the same time "persons can have a right to
spread error"- that is if "right" be taken in the
same sense in both statements. ...How can one have a genuine right
to believe, spread, or practice what is objectively false or morally
wrong? For a genuine right is based on what is objectively true
and good.5
Such authors
as Mgr. Shea and Father Connell faithfully reflect the teaching
of the Popes who have condemned in the most forceful terms the belief
that the state has no right to repress public heresy and that truth
and error should be accorded equal right. Pope Pius VII termed it
"disastrous and ever-to-be deplored heresy" (letter to
Mgr. de Boulogne); Pope Gregory XVI condemned it as "the insanity"
(Mirari Vos); Pope Pius IX termed it “a monstrous error”
(Qui Pluribus), “most pernicious to the Catholic Church,
and to the salvation of souls” (Quanta Cura), “the liberty
of perdition” (Quanta Cura), something which will “corrupt
the morals and minds of the people” (Syllabus of Error),
something which propagates “the best of indifferentism” (Syllabus);
Pope Leo XIII termed it “a public crime” (Immortale Dei),
“atheism, however it may differ from its name” (Immortale
Dei), “contrary to reason” (Libertas).
Obviously,
the insistence of the Popes upon the rights of truth is anathema
to contemporary Liberalism in which unrestricted Liberty, including
the liberty to propagate error, is the supreme norm. This liberty
had been proclaimed in the Masonically inspired Rights of Man of
the French Revolution and was subjected to one restriction only,
the demands of public order. Papal teaching on the right of a Catholic
state to repress error was embarrassing to such Catholic Liberals
as Father Murray who wished to make Catholicism acceptable to contemporary
American society. He was, no doubt, sincere in his efforts and considered
them to be for the good of the Church. His principal argument was
that the teaching of the Popes which has just been cited was related
to a particular period in the history of the Church and was not
of permanent validity. He was answered by no less an authority than
Cardinal Ottaviani in an important article which appeared in the
May 1953 issue of the American Ecclesiastical Review:
The first
fault of these persons consists in their failure to accept fully
the arma veritatis and the teaching which the Roman Pontiffs
during the past century, and particularly the reigning Pontiff
Pius XII, have given to Catholics on this subject in encyclical
letters, allocutions and instructions of various kinds.
To justify
themselves these people assert that in the body of teaching imparted
within the Church there are to be distinguished two elements,
the one permanent, and the other transient. The latter is supposed
to be due to the reflection of particular contemporary conditions.
Unfortunately,
they carry this tactic so far as to apply it to the principles
taught in pontifical documents, principles on which the teachings
of the Popes have remained constant so as to make these principles
a part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine. (Mv emphasis.)
DIGNITATIS
HUMANAE
The
Declaration on Religious Liberty
of the Second Vatican Council
This Declaration
is one of the most important documents of the Council. The ecumenical
euphoria which followed Vatican II would not have been possible
without it. No substantial ecumenical progress could have been made
while the Church still insisted upon the right of a Catholic state
to repress the public expression of heresy.
Paul Blanshard
was America's most virulent anti-Catholic polemicist in the years
preceding the Council. His particular bete noire was the
Church's teaching on religious liberty. The fact that he had much
to say in praise of Dignitatis Humanae (which will be abbreviated
DH from now on) is a damning indictment of the extent to which the
traditional teaching has been compromised. Blanshard claimed that
DH "marked a great advance in Catholic policy, perhaps the
greatest single advance in principle during all four sessions of
the Council."6
He was sufficiently perceptive to note that Article Two of the Declaration
contained "the best paragraphs."7
This is also the view of Mgr. Pietro Pavan, one of the theologians
who collaborated with Fr. Murray in drafting and defending the Declaration.
Mgr. Pavan wrote the commentary on DH which appears in Father Vorgrimler's
highly praised Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II. (This
commentary is highly praised because it endorses all the standard
Liberal assumptions on the merits of the Council.) Mgr. Pavan states
in his commentary that: "Article 2 is undoubtedly the most
important article of the Declaration."8
It could certainly be considered the most important article in any
document of the Council as, until it is corrected by the Magisterium,
it represents not simply a contradiction of consistently reiterated,
and possibly infallible, papal teaching but an implicit repudiation
of the Kingship of Christ. Article 2 reads:
This Vatican
Synod 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 social groups and of any
human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is
to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.
Up to this
point everything can be reconciled with the traditional doctrine.
Article 2 continues:
Nor
is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own
beliefs, whether privately…
The traditional
teaching has still not been violated-but now comes the break with
tradition:
…or publicly,
whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The phrase
“within due limits” could have maintained harmony with previous
papal teaching had these “due limits” been specified as “the common
good.” However, in conformity with the Masonic Declaration of
the Right of Man the “due limits” are later specified
as “public order.”
The Declaration
continues:
The Synod
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.
It is important
to bear in mind that from the moment the words “or publicly” were
used, the term “religious freedom” in this Declaration includes
freedom from restraint in the external forum, subject only to the
requirements of public order. The sentence just cited is, then,
neither in harmony with the revealed word of God nor reason. If
there is one doctrine which is taught clearly throughout the Old
Testament, it is that no one has a right to express religious error
in the public forum - the penalty, mandated by God, was death. Are
we to believe that God commanded men to be put to death for exercising
what He had established as a human right? Nor is there anything
reasonable in claiming that men have a natural right to teach error
in public as long as this does not result in a breach of public
order. The civil laws of slander and libel make this clear.
Mgr. Pavan
comments:
...the right
to religious freedom must be regarded as a fundamental right
of the human person or as a natural right, that is one grounded
in the very nature of man, as the Declaration itself repeats
several times. 9
(Emphasis in original.)
Contrast this
with a statement by Father Connell:
Beyond doubt,
the expression "freedom- of worship " is ordinarily
understood by our non-Catholic fellow-citizens, when they advocate
the "four freedoms,” in the sense that every one has a natural
God-given right to accept and to practice whatever form of religion
appeals to him individually. No Catholic can in conscience defend
such an idea of freedom of religious worship. For, according to
Catholic principles, the only religion that has a right to exist
is the religion that God revealed and made obligatory on all men;
hence, man has a natural and God-given freedom to embrace only
the true religion. One who sincerely believes himself bound to
practice some form of non-Catholic religion is in conscience obliged
to do so; but this subjective obligation, based on an erroneous
conscience, does not give him a genuine right. A real right is
something objective based on truth. Accordingly, a Catholic may
not defend freedom of religious worship to the extent of denying
that a Catholic government has the right, absolutely speaking,
to restrict the activities of non-Catholic denominations in order
to protect the Catholic citizens from spiritual harm. 10
The Vatican
II Declaration continues
This right
of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in
the constitutional law whereby society is governed. This is to
become a civil right.
Contrast this
with the proposition condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura,
censuring those who:
…fear not
to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic
Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our
Predecessor, Gregory XVI (lately quoted), the insanity (deliramentum)
(Encyclical 13 August 1832): namely, “that liberty of conscience
and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable right of every
man, which should be proclaimed by law….”
What Fr. Connell
had stated no Catholic may defend is precisely what the Declaration
defends and proclaims as a right. Thus Mgr, Pavan states in his
commentary that: “In the religious sphere no man may be compelled
to act against his conscience; and no one may be presented from
acting according to his conscience.” (My emphasis.)
It is not simply
traditionalists who fail to see how the teaching of Quanta Cura
and Dignitatis Humanae can be reconciled, how the latter
can be said to be a development of the former. It is also very significant,
in view of the important place held by Quanta Cura and the
Syllabus in papal teaching on the subject of religious liberty,
that neither is referred to in any of the footnotes to Dignitatis
Humanae . In the many references to the teachings of “recent
popes”not one of the texts cited affirms the right to religious
freedom in the external forum. The breach with the traditional teaching
can be narrowed down to two words in the Latin text of Dignitatis
Humanae, “et publice” (“and in public”). Among the many non-traditionalists
who have admitted the difficulty of proving a legitimate development
between the traditional teaching and that of Vatican II are four
Council periti (experts) whose testimony is of the very highest
importance-the first three being the experts most influential in
drafting the text of the Declaration itself. These experts are Fr.
John Courtney Murray, S. J., Mgr. Pietro Pavan, Fr. Yves Congar,
0. P., and Fr. Hans Kung.
Father Murray
admitted openly that no one had been able to supply an explanation
of how the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae constituted a development.
He simply asserted that it was a development:
The course
of the development between the Syllabus of Errors (1864)
and Dignitatis Humanae Personae (1965) still remains to
be explained by theologians. 11
Mgr. Pavan
concedes that no previous papal teaching agrees with Dignitatis
Humanae. The best he can come up with is that the teaching of
some recent Popes "tended towards" it, including in this
list Popes Pius XI and XII who had specifically re-affirmed the
traditional position.
Mgr. Pavan
writes:
...there
had, of course, been a doctrinal development, but that its last
phase tended towards what was said in the Council documents, if
it did not actually agree with it.
Fr. Congar
writes, apropos Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae:
It cannot
be denied that a text like this does materially say something
different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the
opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the document.12
An interview
with Hans Kung published in the National Catholic Reporter
on 21 October 1977 contained the following passage:
In recent
books he has stated that while conservatives do not have the right
answers, they are often asking the right questions. And Lefebvre
is no exception.
"I think
he is wrong, but nevertheless what he's arguing are theoretically
unresolved questions. "
Lefebvre
has every right to question the Council’s Declaration on Religious
Freedom, Kung says, because Vatican II completely reversed
Vatican I’s position without explanation.
“The Council
evaporated the problem, “Kung insists, because it called into
question the doctrine of infallibility…. He reminisces over the
late night conversations with Father John Courtney Murray (the
American who guided Council thought on religious liberty):
“The Council
bishops said, ‘It’s too complicated to explain how you can
go from a condemnation of religious liberty to an affirmation
of it purely by the notion of progress.’ ”
For Kung
the issue is still unresolved and cannot be settled without looking
at permanence, continuity and the infallibility of doctrine. And
to do that the bishops may well have to say that what they
uttered infallibly in the 19th century or before simply does not
hold in the twentieth. (My emphasis.)
Perhaps the
most damning indictment of Dignitatis Humanae is the praise
it received from the virulently anti-Catholic Paul Blanshard, who
described it as making “a great advance in Catholic policy, perhaps
the greatest single advance in principle during all four sessions
of the Council.”13
The Declaration
is commended by Blanshard because:
Catholicism
after centuries of delay has finally caught up at least in part
to the United Nations, to Western Protestantism, to Western democracies,
and to the social democratic parties of Europe in advocating what
had been written into the American Constitution more than 175
years before…. The final statement on religious liberty was an
important achievement. It will make the struggle for religious
liberty throughout the world easier. From now on every libertarian
can cite an offical Catholic pronouncement endorsing the principle
of liberty.14
But Blanshard
positively exults in the fact that what has taken place is not a
development but a change in doctrine. Vatican II had adopted
Blanshard’s position, he is pleased, but he is justifiably insistent
that it can only have done this by reversing previous Catholic teaching.
Having dedicated himself to opposing that teaching no one was better
placed to know precisely what that teaching was. Blanshard writes
with contempt of attempts to cover up a change in doctrine under
the pretext of development. Such attempts are specious at the best
and dishonest at the worst. Blanshard writes:
The star
of the American delegation was John Courtney Murray, whose chief
function was to give the pedestrian bishops the right words
with which to change some ancient doctrines without admitting
that they were being changed. He built verbal bridges to the
modern world very effectively, and the American bishops crossed
over them joyously, delighted that they could be good American
democrats and Catholic scholars at the same time. Murray argued
that certain teachings of past leaders of Catholicism were not
applicable at the present time in their original sense, since
they had been designed to meet certain historic situations, and
those situations had changed. Doctrine, he alleged, could "develop,"
a polite way of saying that it could change without any necessary
admission that it had changed.
This adroit
formula for a "changeless" Church was frequently used
at Vatican II by theologians who were bound by their Church's
veneration for tradition, but it was not always accepted as worthy
of honest men even by Jesuit leaders whose institutional past
is commonly associated with such linguistic manipulation. In another
connection, Father John C. Ford, S. J., of the Catholic University
of America, declared after the end of the Council: "I do
not consider it theologically legitimate or even decent and honest;
to-contradict a doctrine and then disguise the contradiction under
the rubric : growth and evolution."15
(My emphasis.)
Blanshard remarked
that:
I am often
asked: Have you changed your opinion about the Catholic Church?
The answer is "Yes," but only to the extent that the
Catholic Church has changed.16
Although my
treatment of this important issue has necessarily been brief, sufficient
evidence should have been presented to make it clear that Paul Hallet
was perfectly correct to state in his National Catholic Register
article that: “Hence it is not disloyal to faith to seek a clarification
of its ambiguities. Nothing is to be gained by pretending they do
not exist.” It should also be clear that the many Catholics (not
all of them Liberals) who sneer at Mgr. Lefebvre, and reject his
criticisms of the Declaration without having the courtesy and fairness
to examine them, are acting most unjustly. It requires little effort
and little integrity to condemn the Archbishop unheard simply because
he criticizes Vatican II. Nor does it take much courage to do so,
particularly when those who attack him can be virtually certain
that no opportunity will be provided in the offical Catholic press
for the Archbishop’s side of the case to be presented. Ironically,
the Declaration of Religious Liberty is being defended by denying
the Archbishop the liberty to express his views in public. In order
to assist those who are fair-minded enough to study both sides of
the case I have written a book on the subject of Dignitatis Humanae
which should be published in 1980.
This appendix
can best be concluded by quoting the final paragraph from Paul Hallett’s
3 July 1977 article .
The Religious
Liberty Declaration contains many excellent statements of principle,
which need to be asserted against the rampant atheism that threatens
all religion. All this is to the good. But for the protection of
religion and not exclusively the Catholic religion - it is necessary
that some things be made clearer and more in accord with tradition
than they have been in the Religious Liberty Declaration.
Footnotes
The American
Ecclesiastical Review has been abbreviated as AER.
1.
See the Approaches supplement, The Ordinary Magisterium of
the Church Theologically Considered by Dom Paul Nau, 0. S. B.
2.
See the article "Toleration" in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
3.
"Discussion of Government Repression of Heresy," Proceedings
111 (March 1949), pp. 98-101.
4.
AER, No.119, October 1948, p. 250.
5.
AER, No.151, February 1964, p. 128.
6.
Paul Blanshard on Vatican II (Beacon Press, Boston, 1966),
p. 339.
7.
Ibid., p. 89.
8.
H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II,
IV,64.
9.
Ibid., p. 65.
10.
AER, No.109, October 1943, p. 255.
11. W.
Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II (America Press, 1967),
p. 673.
12.
Challenge to the Church (London, 1977), p. 44.
13.
Blanshard, p. 339.
14.
Ibid., pp. 88-89.
15. Ibid.,
pp. 87-880
16.
Ibid., Preface.
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109
|
