Major Heresy of Vatican II: “Dignitatis Humanae”
in contradiction with
the dogma of the Royalty of Christ
Table of contents
– Introduction
– Proofs drawn from “Ils L’ont Découronné” that “Dignitatis Humanae” is in contradiction with Tradition
– 1. Religious liberty as a universal right
– 2. Neutrality of the State towards religion
– 3. Indifferentism based on the (false) dignity of man
– 4. Coercion in religious matters and the role of the State
– Refutation of three counter-arguments
– Conclusion
Introduction
Proofs drawn from “Ils L’ont Découronné” that “Dignitatis Humanae” is in contradiction with Tradition and heretical
In his masterful book “Ils L’ont Découronné”, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre demonstrates that the declaration “Dignitatis Humanae” (DH) of the Vatican II Council undermines Catholic teaching by promoting religious liberty as a universal right, rooted in human dignity, and by obliging the State to remain neutral towards religions. This goes against the immutable teaching according to which the Catholic religion is the only true one, that error has no rights, and that the State is obliged to promote the true religion. Here are the specific proofs drawn from the book, with direct quotations from the Magisterium before 1962, followed by a refutation of the counter-arguments.
- Religious liberty as a universal right
“Dignitatis humanae” (of human dignity) is the declaration of the Vatican II Council on religious liberty. It was voted by 2,308 votes against 70 and promulgated by (anti-)Pope Paul VI on 7 December 1965.
“Dignitatis Humanae” declares in section 2: “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious liberty. This freedom means that all men must be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups, or any human power, so that no one is forced to act against his own convictions, whether in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within appropriate limits.”
This is heretical in granting a right to error, which is directly contrary to the teaching according to which only truth has rights.
– Proof drawn from the Magisterium:
– Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (15 August 1832) condemns religious liberty as a madness that stems from indifferentism: “From this poisoned source of indifferentism, flows that false and absurd maxim, or rather that delirium: that one must procure and guarantee to everyone the liberty of conscience; an error of the most contagious kind, which paves the way for that absolute and unrestrained liberty of opinions which, for the ruin of the Church and the State, is spreading everywhere, and which some men, with an excess of impudence, do not fear to represent as advantageous to religion.”
– Pope Pius IX in the encyclical considered by all theologians of the time as infallible (at least by the M.U.O., Magisterium Universel Ordinaire, see the article “Quanta Cura” in the D.T.C.), “Quanta Cura” of 8 December 1864, calls religious liberty for every religion a “liberty of perdition”. The text condemns the “opinions which lead to perdition” and condemns the proposition according to which “the liberty of conscience and of worship is a personal right for every man, which must be proclaimed and affirmed legally in every well-ordered society”.
– The “Syllabus Errorum” (1864), annexed to “Quanta Cura” (equally infallible by the M.U.O.), condemns Proposition 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion which he, guided by the light of reason, judges true.” Also Proposition 79: “It is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship leads more easily to the corruption of the morals and minds of the people, and to the propagation of the plague of indifferentism.”
– Contradiction clearly established:
“Dignitatis Humanae” recognises a right to freedom from coercion in religious matters, which implies that false religions may be practised, whereas the Magisterium teaches that error has no rights and that the State must repress false cults when possible.
Note:
To avoid any misunderstanding, it is necessary to distinguish between “natural right” and “positive right”:
– the so-called natural, moral right to error: it is in all cases gravely erroneous and criminal
– and “the civil right to immunity from constraint” which is erroneous in principle, but which the previous Magisterium may tolerate ad cautelam, practically, to avoid a greater evil such as a religious war.
Yet “immunity from constraint, always in all cases” amounts in practice to “a right to error”.
- Neutrality of the State towards religion
“Dignitatis Humanae” obliges, in section 2, the State to protect religious liberty by means of “just laws” and forbids the State from imposing or prohibiting religion, except when public order is threatened.
This is a grave theological error (haeresi proxima) because thus the State is forced into indifferentism, contrary to the duty to promote the Catholic religion, to support it, and to protect it.
– Proof drawn from the Magisterium:
– Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical “Immortale Dei” (1 November 1885) affirms: “The State must profess the Catholic religion and limit the public exercise of other religions, except when this is tolerated for practical reasons.”
– The “Syllabus Errorum” condemns Proposition 77: “At the present time, it is no longer useful that the Catholic religion be considered as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” and it condemns Proposition 78: “Whence it is wisely decided by law, in certain Catholic countries, that persons who come to reside there may publicly exercise their own particular cult.”
– Contradiction well clear:
“Dignitatis Humanae” of Vatican II teaches that the State must practise religious indifferentism, which leads to the negation of the social royalty of Christ, as established in the encyclical “Quas Primas” (of Pius XI, 11 December 1925): “Society must be subject to the divine law of Christ.” The Magisterium requires that the State recognise the true religion and limit the false ones, whereas “Dignitatis Humanae” forbids the State from distinguishing between truth and error.
- Indifferentism based on the (false) dignity of man
“Dignitatis Humanae” bases religious liberty on the dignity of the human person and affirms that this dignity persists after sin, presupposing an unalterable natural dignity, independently of the state of grace, so that man may freely seek and spread the (or rather: his) religious truth without political coercion. The document affirms: “The Council declares moreover that the right to religious liberty has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, such as this dignity is known by the revealed word of God and by reason itself.” (DH n°2).
This is heretical because it promotes indifferentism by treating all religions equally and by detaching dignity from objective truth.
– Proof drawn from the Magisterium:
– Pope Pius XI in the encyclical “Mortalium Animos” (6 January 1928) condemns indifferentism as “an error which leads to naturalism and to atheism”. He writes: “It is clear that the Apostolic See cannot in any way participate in their ecumenical meetings, nor is it permitted to Catholics to support or collaborate in such enterprises.”
– Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical “Libertas Praestantissimum” (20 June 1888) teaches: “Wherefore civil society, as a society, must necessarily recognise God as its principle and its author and, consequently, render to His power and authority the homage of its worship. No, by justice; no, by reason, the State cannot be atheistic, or, which would amount to atheism, be animated towards all religions, as it is said, with the same dispositions, and grant them indiscriminately the same rights.” And in the encyclical “Immortale Dei” (par. 32) this Pope writes: “If the intellect adheres to false ideas, and if the will chooses evil and clings to it, neither of the two faculties attains its perfection; both fall from their innate dignity and are corrupted.”
– Contradiction:
“Dignitatis Humanae” of Vatican II ignores these condemnations by affirming that the State must create conditions for religious life in general, independently of the truth of the religion (that is to say of the true religion)? This undermines the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the sole way of salvation, against the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (“outside the Church there is no salvation”) of Pope Boniface VIII, Papal Bull “Unam Sanctam” of 18 November 1302.
- Coercion in religious matters and the role of the State
“Dignitatis Humanae” forbids coercion in religious matters and affirms that the State is incompetent to govern this, and that the State has only to guarantee liberty while “watching over public order”. This is a grave theological error (haeresi proxima) because it denies the traditional teaching according to which the State may exercise coercion to protect the true religion.
– Proof drawn from the Magisterium:
– Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica (II-II, q. 10, a. 8) teaches that the State, as the secular arm of the Church, may intervene against error and against heresy and constrain the infidels and heretics to prevent them from harming the religion: Concerning infidels: In the “Corpus” of the article: “Among the infidels there are some, like the pagans and the Jews, who have never received the faith. Such infidels must not be compelled to believe, because believing is an act of will. However, they must be constrained by the faithful, if there is a way, so that they do not oppose the faith by blasphemies, by evil suggestions, or even by open persecutions. It is for this that often the faithful of Christ wage war against infidels; it is not to force them to believe since, even if after having conquered them they held them prisoners, they would leave them free to believe; what one wants is to compel them not to hinder the Christian faith. But there are other infidels who at one time embraced the faith and professed it, like heretics and some apostates. These, it is necessary to constrain even physically to accomplish what they have promised and to keep the faith which they have once and for all embraced.” Concerning heretics: “Ad 2”: “The Jews, if they have in no way received the faith, must not be compelled to it. But, if they have received the faith, ‘it is necessary that they be put by force into the necessity of keeping it’, says the same chapter of the Decretals.”
– Pope Paul IV in the Bull “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio” (15 February 1559) affirms that heretics lose their authority and that the State must punish them: “§3 ..moreover, they will be abandoned to the decision of the secular power to undergo their just punishment..”
– Contradiction:
“Dignitatis Humanae” teaches that coercion is intrinsically contrary to human nature, whereas the Magisterium teaches that coercion is not theologically contrary to nature, especially to protect the common good and repress liberty in religious matters when necessary.
Refutation of three counter-arguments
- a) “Dignitatis Humanae” is solely pastoral and not a rupture with Tradition.
This is refuted because “Dignitatis Humanae” has dogmatic implications by introducing a new teaching that takes up propositions explicitly condemned, as in the Syllabus Errorum. Pius XII, in the Address “Ci Riesce” (6 December 1953), declares: « What does not respond to truth and to moral law has objectively no right to existence, nor to propaganda, nor to action.»
- b) “Dignitatis Humanae” emphasises tolerance, which is consistent with teaching before 1962.
The tolerance admitted in “Immortale Dei” is only a prudent concession to avoid a greater evil, not an intrinsic right of error. “Dignitatis Humanae” goes further by granting a universal right to error, which is heretical, because it goes against “Quanta Cura” according to which only truth has rights: indeed this civil right to immunity from coercion (libertas ab coactione) amounts in practice to a right of error to exist and propagate in society.
- c) “Dignitatis Humanae” is a legitimate development of doctrine.
Development can never contradict previous definitions. The condemnations in “Quanta Cura” and the “Syllabus” are unambiguous and leave no room for a universal right to religious liberty.
Conclusion
These proofs indeed show that “Dignitatis Humanae” is heretical in contradicting Traditional Teaching, as established in “Mirari Vos”, “Quanta Cura”, the “Syllabus Errorum”, “Immortale Dei”, “Libertas Praestantissimum” and “Mortalium Animos”. The document undermines the exclusive truth of the Catholic religion, the duty of the State to promote it, and the social royalty of Christ.