Major Heresy of the “Council” Vatican II: “Dignitatis Humanae”

in contradiction with the dogma of the Social Kingship of Christ

Table of Contents

 

1. Introduction
2. Religious liberty as a universal right

    2.1 Presentation of the text of Dignitatis Humanae

    2.2 Proofs drawn from the Magisterium

    2.3 Contradiction clearly established and an additional difficulty

    2.4 Necessary distinction between natural right and positive right

3. Neutrality of the State toward religion

    3.1 Presentation of the error in Dignitatis Humanae

    3.2 Proofs drawn from the Magisterium

    3.3 Manifest opposition to the Social Kingship of Christ

    3.4 Confirmation by History

4. Indifferentism based on a false human dignity

    4.1 Presentation of the error in Dignitatis Humanae

    4.2 Traditional Catholic doctrine on dignity

    4.3 Proofs drawn from the Magisterium

    4.4 Contradiction with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

5. Coercion in religious matters and the role of the State

    5.1 Presentation of the error in Dignitatis Humanae

    5.2 Proofs drawn from the Magisterium

    5.3 Opposition to traditional teaching

6. Refutation of three counter-arguments
7. Conclusion
8. List of sources

 

1. Introduction

In his masterly book They Have Uncrowned Him (chs. IX–X and XXVII–XXVIII), Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre demonstrates that the declaration Dignitatis Humanae of the Second Vatican Council undermines Catholic teaching by promoting religious liberty as a universal right, rooted in a purported human dignity, and by obliging the State to remain neutral toward religions. This stands in direct opposition to the immutable teaching according to which the Catholic religion is the only true one, that error has no rights, and that the State has the duty to promote the true religion.

This contradiction touches the very heart of the dogma of the Social Kingship of Christ the King, solemnly proclaimed by Pius XI in the encyclical Quas Primas of 11 December 1925 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XVII, 1925, pp. 600–601). Christ received from the Father all power in heaven and on earth (Mt 28:18; 11:27). To deny the duty of the State to recognize and favor the one true religion is to refuse the sovereignty of Christ over civil societies by rendering the State agnostic.

Here are the specific proofs drawn from the book, supported by direct and precise citations of the pre-1962 Magisterium, followed by a refutation of the counter-arguments.

2. Religious liberty as a universal right

2.1 Presentation of the text of Dignitatis Humanae

Dignitatis Humanae is the declaration of the Second Vatican Council on religious liberty. It was voted by 2,308 votes against 70 and promulgated by the antipope Paul VI on 7 December 1965 (Acta Synodalia, vol. IV, pars VII, public session IX, pp. 859–860). In its paragraph 2 it declares:

“This Vatican Council 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 of social groups and of any human power, so that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.” (Dignitatis Humanae, § 2; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. LVIII, 1966, pp. 930–931; translation from the Latin.)

This is heretical because it grants a right to error, which directly contradicts the teaching according to which only the truth has rights.

2.2 Proofs drawn from the Magisterium

Pope Gregory XVI, in Mirari Vos of 15 August 1832, condemns religious liberty as a madness arising from indifferentism:

“From this poisoned source of indifferentism flows that false and absurd, or rather insane, maxim that liberty of conscience must be claimed and secured for everyone; an error most contagious, to which that absolute and unrestrained liberty of opinion which, for the ruin of Church and State, is spreading everywhere, and which certain men, by an excess of impudence, do not fear to represent as advantageous to religion, paves the way.” (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. IV, p. 341; French translation in Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, ch. X.)

Pope Pius IX, in the encyclical Quanta Cura of 8 December 1864 (regarded as infallible by theologians such as Wernz, who also invokes the consent of the Magisterium of the dispersed Church; L. Brigué, “Syllabus”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. XIV, second part, col. 2918), calls religious liberty for every religion a “liberty of perdition”. He condemns the opinions that lead to perdition and the proposition that “liberty of conscience and of worship is a right proper to every man, which must be proclaimed and guaranteed by law in every well-constituted society” (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, p. 162; translation from the Latin).

The Syllabus Errorum of 1864, annexed to Quanta Cura, is regarded by some theologians as an ex cathedra definition; according to Wernz, its teaching in any case enjoys the guarantee of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, by reason of the consent of the Magisterium of the dispersed Church (L. Brigué, “Syllabus”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, vol. XIV, second part, cols. 2916–2918). It condemns proposition 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion which, led by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, p. 170; translation from the Latin.) It also condemns proposition 79: “It is false that the civil liberty of every cult, as also the full power granted to all of manifesting openly and publicly all opinions and thoughts, more easily leads to the corruption of the morals and minds of the peoples and to the propagation of the plague of indifferentism.” (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, p. 176; translation from the Latin.)

2.3 Contradiction clearly established and an additional difficulty

Dignitatis Humanae recognizes a right to immunity from coercion in religious matters, which implies that false religions may be practiced publicly, whereas the Magisterium teaches that error has no rights and that the State must repress false cults when this is possible. This error amounts to granting error a positive right which it does not possess.

As Pius XII teaches in the allocution Ci Riesce of 6 December 1953: “That which does not correspond to truth and to the moral law has objectively no right to existence, nor to propaganda, nor to action.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XLV, 1953, p. 799; French translation in Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, ch. XXVII.) To grant a universal right to religious liberty directly contradicts this immutable principle.

If religious liberty were truly a universal natural right founded on human nature, this right would have existed from the origin of humanity. On that hypothesis, Moses would have violated a natural right in repressing idolatry (Ex 32:20 and 26–28), the pious kings of Israel would have violated a natural right in destroying the pagan high places (2 Kings 18:3–4; 23:4–20), the Christian emperors would have violated a natural right in legally protecting the Church (Theodosian Code, XVI, 1, 2, edict of 27 February 380), Saint Louis IX would have violated a natural right in defending the religious unity of his kingdom (Joinville, Memoirs, second part, teachings of Saint Louis to his son), and the popes themselves would have taught for centuries against a purported fundamental natural right. Such a conclusion is inadmissible.

2.4 Necessary distinction between natural right and positive right

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, one must distinguish between the natural (moral) right to error, which is in every case gravely erroneous and criminal, and the civil right to immunity from constraint, which is erroneous in principle but which the earlier Magisterium may tolerate ad cautelam, practically, in order to avoid a greater evil (such as a religious war). Yet immunity from constraint amounts practically, in every case, to recognizing a civil right of error.

3. Neutrality of the State toward religion

3.1 Presentation of the error in Dignitatis Humanae

Dignitatis Humanae, in paragraph 6, obliges the State to protect religious liberty by “just laws” and forbids the State to impose or to prohibit a religion, except when public order is threatened (Dignitatis Humanae, §§ 6–7; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. LVIII, 1966, pp. 933–935). This constitutes a grave theological error (close to heresy) because it forces the State into indifferentism, contrary to its duty to promote the Catholic religion, to support it and to protect it.

3.2 Proofs drawn from the Magisterium

Pope Leo XIII, in the encyclical Immortale Dei of 1 November 1885, affirms that the State must profess the Catholic religion and limit the public exercise of other religions, except when this is tolerated for practical reasons (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XVIII, pp. 163–164 and 174–175).

The Syllabus Errorum condemns proposition 77: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, p. 176; translation from the Latin.) It also condemns proposition 78: “Hence it has been wisely provided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, p. 176; translation from the Latin.)

3.3 Manifest opposition to the Social Kingship of Christ

Dignitatis Humanae teaches that the State must practice religious indifferentism, which leads to the negation of the Social Kingship of Christ, as Quas Primas of Pius XI (11 December 1925) establishes: “Men joined in society are no less subject to the power of Christ than are individuals.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XVII, 1925, p. 601; translation from the Latin.) The same pontiff teaches: “It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XVII, 1925, p. 600; translation from the Latin.)

Dignitatis Humanae precisely withdraws from the State the obligation to recognize publicly the Catholic religion as the only true one and imposes upon it a religious neutrality of principle. This neutrality is incompatible with Quas Primas, because a State that refuses to recognize Christ the King officially refuses to submit to His social empire. The contradiction bears upon the very object of the Social Kingship of Christ.

3.4 Confirmation by History

History confirms this doctrine. No traditional Catholic State has ever applied the principle of Dignitatis Humanae. The Papal States, Catholic Spain (Constitution of 19 March 1812, art. 12), Portugal (Constitutional Charter of 1826, art. 6), Catholic Austria, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (Constitution of 10 February 1848, art. 3) or the Ecuador of Gabriel García Moreno (Constitution of 1869, art. 9) recognized juridically the Catholic religion as the religion of the State and limited the public expansion of false cults when the common good required it. The doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae constitutes an unprecedented historical novelty.

4. Indifferentism based on a false human dignity

4.1 Presentation of the error in Dignitatis Humanae

Dignitatis Humanae founds religious liberty upon 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. The document declares in paragraph 2: “The Council 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.” (Dignitatis Humanae, § 2; Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. LVIII, 1966, pp. 930–931; translation from the Latin.)

This is heretical because it promotes indifferentism by treating all religions in an equal manner and by detaching dignity from objective truth.

4.2 Traditional Catholic doctrine on dignity

Traditional Catholic doctrine distinguishes ontological dignity (the image of God) from moral dignity, which depends on conformity to the truth and to the divine law. Liberty is worthy only when it is ordered to the true and the good; separated from the truth, it becomes a principle of disorder.

4.3 Proofs drawn from the Magisterium

Pope Pius XI, in Mortalium Animos of 6 January 1928, condemns indifferentism as an error leading to naturalism and to atheism: “In these conditions, it is manifest that the Apostolic See cannot in any way take part in their assemblies, and that it is in no way lawful for Catholics to support or to work for such enterprises.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XX, 1928, pp. 6 and 11; translation from the Latin.)

Pope Leo XIII, in Libertas Praestantissimum of 20 June 1888, teaches: “For this reason, civil society, inasmuch as it is a society, must necessarily acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must offer to His supreme power and authority the homage of its worship. It is not lawful, by justice or by reason, for the State to be atheist, or, what would amount to atheism, to be animated toward all religions, as they say, with the same dispositions, and to grant them indiscriminately the same rights.” (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XX, p. 604; French translation.)

In Immortale Dei, Leo XIII writes: “If the intelligence adheres to false opinions, if the will chooses evil and clings to it, neither the one nor the other attains its perfection, but both fall from their natural dignity and sink into corruption.” (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XVIII, p. 172; translation from the Latin.)

4.4 Contradiction with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

Dignitatis Humanae ignores these condemnations by affirming that the State must create conditions for religious life in general, independently of the truth. This undermines the uniqueness of the Catholic Church as the sole way of salvation, against the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus defined by Boniface VIII in the bull Unam Sanctam of 18 November 1302 (Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, English translation by Roy J. Deferrari, nos. 468–469, pp. 186–187). By treating all religions as legitimate ways, Dignitatis Humanae denies that the Catholic Church is the unique perfect society and the unique ark of salvation. The dignity of man is found fully only in the truth of Christ and in sanctifying grace.

5. Coercion in religious matters and the role of the State

5.1 Presentation of the error in Dignitatis Humanae

Dignitatis Humanae forbids coercion in religious matters and affirms that the State is incompetent to govern this, limiting itself to guaranteeing liberty while watching over public order. This is a grave theological error (close to heresy) which denies the traditional teaching according to which the State may exercise coercion in order to protect the true religion.

5.2 Proofs drawn from the Magisterium

Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae (II-II, q. 10, a. 8; q. 11, a. 3, body of the articles), teaches that the State, as the secular arm of the Church, may intervene against error and constrain infidels and heretics so that they do not harm religion. For infidels who have never received the faith (pagans and Jews), they must not be forced to believe, but constrained not to hinder the faith. For heretics and apostates who have embraced the faith, they must be physically constrained to keep it.

Pope Paul IV, in the bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio of 15 February 1559 (§ 3), affirms that heretics lose their authority and must be handed over to the secular power to undergo their just punishment (Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum Romanorum Pontificum, Turin edition, vol. VI, 1860, constitution XXVII, § 3, pp. 552–553).

5.3 Opposition to traditional teaching

Dignitatis Humanae teaches that coercion is intrinsically contrary to human nature, whereas the Magisterium teaches that legitimate coercion by the secular arm protects the supernatural common good. To tolerate error without limit amounts to delivering souls to the devil. Saint Thomas (II-II, q. 10, a. 8 and q. 11, a. 3) and Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos confirm that this unbridled liberty is “the most deadly pestilence that can ravage States” (Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. IV, p. 342; French translation in Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, ch. X). The history of nations once Catholic that have adopted indifferentism sadly confirms this.

6. Refutation of three counter-arguments

6.1 First counter-argument

Dignitatis Humanae would be merely 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 in the Syllabus Errorum. Pius XII, in Ci Riesce (6 December 1953), declares: “That which does not correspond to truth and to the moral law has objectively no right to existence, nor to propaganda, nor to action.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XLV, 1953, p. 799; French translation in Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him, ch. XXVII.)

6.2 Second counter-argument

Dignitatis Humanae would emphasize tolerance, consistent with earlier teaching.

The tolerance admitted in Immortale Dei (Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XVIII, pp. 174–175) is only a prudent concession in order to avoid a greater evil, not an intrinsic right of error. Dignitatis Humanae grants a universal right to error, which is heretical and goes against Quanta Cura. This civil right to immunity from coercion amounts in practice to a right of error to exist and to propagate itself.

6.3 Third counter-argument

Dignitatis Humanae would be a legitimate development of doctrine.

Authentic development, according to Saint Vincent of Lérins (Commonitorium, ch. XXIII, § 28, ed. R. S. Moxon, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1915, p. 89), must take place eodem sensu eademque sententia — in the same sense and the same sentence. The condemnations of Quanta Cura and of the Syllabus are unambiguous and leave no room for a universal right to religious liberty. What contradicts earlier definitions is not development but corruption.

7. Conclusion

These proofs show that Dignitatis Humanae is heretical in contradicting the constant traditional teaching set forth in Mirari Vos, Quanta Cura, the Syllabus Errorum, Immortale Dei, Libertas Praestantissimum and Mortalium Animos. Thus this document, promulgated by the antipope Paul VI on 7 December 1965, not only contradicts the Magisterium, but undermines the foundations of the Social Kingship of Christ the King and of the dogma of the uniqueness of the Church. It constitutes a further proof of the vacancy of the Apostolic See since the public heresy of Paul VI and confirms the rupture effected by the Second Vatican Council with Catholic Tradition.

8. List of sources

– Sacred Scripture: Exodus 32:20 and 26–28; Second Book of Kings 18:3–4 and 23:4–20; Matthew 11:27 and 28:18.

– Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae — Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 10, a. 8 and q. 11, a. 3, body of the articles; Latin text of the Leonine edition, Rome, 1895.

– Gregory XVI, encyclical Mirari vos, 15 August 1832, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. IV, pp. 341–342. Original Latin.

– Pius IX, encyclical Quanta cura, 8 December 1864, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, p. 162. Original Latin.

– Pius IX, Syllabus errorum, 8 December 1864, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. III, proposition 15, p. 170; propositions 77–79, p. 176. Original Latin.

– Leo XIII, encyclical Immortale Dei, 1 November 1885, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XVIII, pp. 161–180, especially pp. 163–164, 172 and 174–175. Original Latin.

– Leo XIII, encyclical Libertas praestantissimum, 20 June 1888, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XX, pp. 593–613, especially p. 604. Original Latin.

– Pius XI, encyclical Quas primas, 11 December 1925, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XVII, 1925, pp. 593–610, especially pp. 600–601. Original Latin.

– Pius XI, encyclical Mortalium animos, 6 January 1928, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XX, 1928, pp. 5–16, especially pp. 6 and 11. Original Latin.

– Pius XII, allocution Ci riesce to the Italian Catholic jurists, 6 December 1953, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. XLV, 1953, pp. 794–802, especially p. 799. Original Italian.

– Paul IV, bull Cum ex apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559, in Bullarum diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum Romanorum Pontificum, Turin edition, vol. VI, Augustae Taurinorum, Seb. Franco et Henrico Dalmazzo, 1860, constitution XXVII, § 3, pp. 552–553. Original Latin.

– Boniface VIII, bull Unam sanctam, 18 November 1302, reproduced in Heinrich Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, English translation by Roy J. Deferrari of the thirtieth edition of the Enchiridion, reprint Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire, nos. 468–469, pp. 186–187. Original Latin; English translation.

– Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him (Ils l’ont découronné), French digital edition of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, District of France, chs. IX–X and XXVII–XXVIII.

– Saint Vincent of Lérins, The Commonitorium of Vincentius of Lerins, Latin text edited by Reginald Stewart Moxon, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1915, ch. XXIII, § 28, pp. 88–89, especially p. 89.

– L. Brigué, “Syllabus”, in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique contenant l’exposé des doctrines de la théologie catholique, leurs preuves et leur histoire, Paris, Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1941, vol. XIV, second part, cols. 2877–2924, especially cols. 2916–2918. Original French.

– Dignitatis humanae, declaration of 7 December 1965, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. LVIII, 1966, pp. 929–946, especially §§ 2, 6 and 7, pp. 930–931 and 933–935. Original Latin.

– Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, volumen IV, Periodus quarta, pars VII, Congregationes generales CLXV–CLXVIII. Sessiones publicae IX–X, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1978, public session IX, section 8, pp. 859–860. Original Latin.

– Theodosian Code, XVI, 1, 2, edict Cunctos populos of 27 February 380. Original Latin.

– Jean de Joinville, Memoirs, second part of the history, teachings of Saint Louis to his son. Original French.

– Constitución política de la Monarquía española — Political Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy, 19 March 1812, Title II, Chapter II, art. 12. Original Spanish.

– Carta Constitucional — Constitutional Charter of Portugal, 1826, art. 6. Original Portuguese.

– Constitution of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, 10 February 1848, art. 3. Original Italian.

– Constitución política del año 1869 — Political Constitution of Ecuador of 1869, Title II, art. 9. Original Spanish.