The consequences of the
doctrine of DH on religious liberty are so grave that there appears to be
reluctance by critics to confront the overall picture they dont want to see
the forest, or refuse to acknowledge it, but focus instead on the trees. The
documents stand on religious freedom shamefully repudiates the First Commandment of
the Old Testament by legalizing the worship of false gods. It also essentially
neutralizes the teaching of the New Testament that salvation is through Jesus Christ
alone. In addition, DH constitutes a renunciation of any spiritual or moral
rights and duties that the Church, by Divine Right, has over the State,
since Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. These are not merely
discontinuities with tradition, or legitimate developments of doctrine they are
Catholic confessional state is rendered toothless by DH:
view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given
to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time
imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom
should be recognized and made effective in practice (3)
This is why, in the wake of the Council, the Concordats
between the Vatican and the few nations that still professed Catholicism as their official
religion, had to be modified to allow equal public rights to other religions and gods.
Thus the Council has attempted to roll a permanent stone over the sepulcher of
One writer on this issue has stated that the qualification
that the public practice of false religions must be "within due limits" is the
saving grace of DH. He expresses hope that in the Vatican / SSPX talks the pope
will clarify these variable, changeable limits. (4) But how can any due limits be applied
to the public worship of false gods, in terms of a positive right? The true Church could
never admit to such a guaranteed civil right to disobey the first and greatest
commandment, in order to allow the worship of demons and idols, within "due
limits." Again it is a reluctance to see the forest and admit the gravity of what DH
A drop of poison
Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Satis Cognitum (5)
warned of the necessity to guard the integrity of the faith against those who would differ
in any point from the true doctrine of the Church. Even if they admit the whole cycle of
doctrine, "by one word, as with a drop of poison" they are able to infect the
Apostolic Faith. DH is a perfect example of what Pope Leo warned about. It pays
the required obeisance to the Divine Order, and to the one true religion which is the
Catholic Church . . . excuse me, which "subsists" in the Catholic Church. It is
replete with truisms and platitudes that no one should be coerced into adopting a
But we find the poison subtly administered in the very first
section of DH:
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to
worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves
untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the
true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on
the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society. (6)
Notice that the traditional doctrine is admitted, that men and
societies have a moral duty to the true religion and Church. Then we read in the very next
line "Over and above all this . . ." In other words, above this doctrine, and
over this doctrine, and in addition to this doctrine, the Council will "develop"
another doctrine, that of the "rights" of man and societies. DH then
proceeds to supersede and override the doctrine of the moral duty of states and
individuals to the true Catholic Religion and its traditional doctrines, with its newly
developed doctrine on religious liberty.
One little drop of poison, just a few words: "Over and
above all this
" "Over and above" in the Vaticans English
version is translated from "insuper" in the official Latin DH, which
according to the University of Notre Dames online Latin dictionary means:
"above, overhead; over and above, in addition, besides." (7)
Kneeling was not in keeping with her dignity!
A little drop of venom is surrounded and camouflaged by
the requisite presentation of true Catholic doctrine, just as Pope Leo described it. Over
and above the right of God to be worshipped according to His Will, is the
"inviolable" right of man to worship God as man wills: i.e. religious freedom.
Basic human dignity and human rights have their place, of
course, in the Divine Plan, but they are at the service of the glory of God and the
salvation of souls. Of what use is a feeling of self-dignity if one is to spend the
hereafter in Hell? The weekly Catholic paper of my diocese recently had an item about
standing vs. kneeling to receive the Holy Eucharist. One woman, who attends the Novus
Ordo, said she would be very uncomfortable kneeling to receive Our Lord, because
kneeling was not in keeping with her dignity!
The dignity of kings, presidents, celebrities and other
"dignitaries" will count for nothing before the judgment seat of God, Who is not
a respecter of persons. Jesus came to teach salvation by way of humility (learn of Me for
I am meek and humble of heart, Mt. 11:29), not via self-exaltation or a sense of
The spirituality of the great saints teaches that we are
nothing and nothingness before our Creator. Lord, I am not worthy Domine,
non sum dignus. The spirituality of DH is such that human beings must be
given the freedom to publicly disobey and ignore the great commandments of the New and Old
Testaments, since these are overridden by their inviolable rights of "human
dignity" and conscience.
The doctrine of the primacy of the worship that must be paid
to the true Faith is revised and superseded in DH in much the same way that Pope
Pius IXs Syllabus of Errors was "revised" by Gaudium et Spes,
as explained by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in (Principles of Catholic Theology
[Téqui, 1982], p. 426):
If we seek an over-all analysis of Gaudium et Spes, we could say that it is
(linked with the texts on religious liberty and on world religions), a revision of Pius
IXs Syllabus, a sort of Counter-Syllabus... Let us recognize here and
now that Gaudium et Spes plays the part of a Counter-Syllabus insofar as it
represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the modern world as emerging
since the French Revolution of 1789. (8)
From the above quote we see that Vatican II attempts to
reconcile the Church with the principles that have emerged from the French Revolution,
which are none other than the "rights of man," taking precedence over the rights
of God and of the Catholic Church which He founded. Notice also that Cardinal Ratzinger
says that Vatican IIs revision of the infallible Syllabus is
"linked" to the text on religious liberty.
Let us see how DHs human dignity and the rights
of man override in practice the duty to worship the One God in the True Religion, by
outlining a hypothetical example. According to DH people have
a civil right, within due limits, and because of their "human
dignity," to worship their concept of God according to their conscience.
Therefore, neo-Aztecs may be permitted to return to worshipping their demon gods,
within due limits: which means no human sacrifice. No one has the right to tear down
their idols, but they have a civic right to condemn themselves
to Hell. Even religions that blaspheme Christ, and seek to replace and blot out
Christian worship, are to be free to publicly propagate their errors. This is what DH
teaches, and the necessary implication is that Jesus Christ, who is head of the Church,
also teaches this.
Dignitatis Humanae is a Modernist Document
DH is based on the modernist heresy that the impulse to
adore and worship God is not due to saving grace granted by a transcendent Being who truly
exists, but rather arises from immanent, inner sentiments particular to each individual,
experiences which are relative and ever evolving. Therefore all religions are equally
valid, which is why they must have the "civil right" to be publicly expressed
and spread. (9,10,11). Thus, DH makes no explicit distinction whatsoever
between worshiping the true God and worshipping false gods!
In all fairness to the document, the second half of DH
contains an excellent overview of many aspects of traditional Catholic doctrine, and
illustrates the great benefits that accrue to the Church when governments provide it with
full civil rights.
But attempts to reconcile Tradition with Vatican II or DH
are pointless. The simple reason is that the underlying intention of the
progressivist Council bishops and periti was to undermine Tradition in favor of Aggiornamento
and their new vision of what the Church should be. This is proven by their own
admission, in the extensive interviews conducted with them by Atila S. Guimaraes for
his monumental series of books on the Council. (12)
The Church, after Vatican II, now marches under the banner of
the dignity of man, rather than under the banner of the humiliated, crucified Christ, a
"worm and no man," (Ps. 22:6.) In sum, the religious freedom of Dignitatis
Humanae constitutes a great apostasy against the order established by
the Triune God. Can you see the forest now?
[speaking of the Church:] Nor does it assail the rights of God because
they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate,
March 19, 1902.)
- Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965, www.vatican.va, Section 2, paragraph 1.
- Ibid., Section 2, paragraph 2.
- Ibid., Section 6, paragraph 4.
- John Salza, J.D., http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1115-salza-vaticansspx_discussion.htm
- Leo XIII, Pope, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, www.vatican.va.
- Dignitatis Humanae, Section 1, paragraphs 4, 5.
- University of Notre Dame, Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid, http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm.
- Joseph Ratzinger, Cardinal, quote taken from this site: http://www.sspx.org/superior_generals_ltrs/supgen_62.htm.
- St. Pius X, Pope, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, www.vatican.va.
- St. Pius X, Pope, Lamentabili Sane, Syllabus condemning the errors of the
Modernists, July 3, 1907, http://www.papalencyclicals.net
(not at www.vatican.va).
- Dominic Bourmaud, Fr., One Hundred Years of Modernism (Kansas City, MO.:
Angelus Press, 2006).
- Atila S. Guimaraes, books by: http://www.traditioninaction.org/books.htm.