What is religious freedom? Did the Church err about religious freedom at Vatican II? Michael Lofton from “Reason and Theology” tackles one of the great controversies of the council.
Cy Kellett:
Hello and welcome to Focus the Catholic Answers podcast for living, understanding and defending your Catholic Faith. I am Cy Kellett, your host. And this time we talk a bit about a controversy within the Catholic Church one that good apologist or good defender of the faith would want to have some familiarity with because different Catholics and, and, and those in the Catholic orbit who may or may not still be in full communion with the church have a, have conflict about what happened at the Second Vatican Council, particularly in a doc document regarding religious freedom. And many people might be shocked to hear that that’s an issue at all, because isn’t that resolved <laugh>? I mean, didn’t, I don’t know. Didn’t the American constitutions resolve that for the church or something? I don’t know. So to, to hear, to help us talk about that as Michael Lofton, an affiliate apologist here at Catholic Cancers and the proprietor of the Reason and Theology podcast. Michael, thanks for being with us.
Michael Lofton:
Hey, Cy. Thanks for having me back on. It’s an honor.
Cy Kellett:
You, you know, one thing that I, in my own experience with people in the St. Pius the 10th society, is, I just assumed in speaking with them and would often just speak as if this assumption I, I just, I, I guess that that’s what an assumption is. I, it was an unquestioned kind of thought in my head that what their main problem w with the post Vatican two church was a liturgical problem. And many of them that I’ve spoken to have said, actually, that’s not the primary problem. The problem has to do with this religious freedom thing. So can you just tell me you know, now, now 50 years or so after the document came out well, almost 50 years, I think it’s a 1960, I, I can’t remember the date. 65. 65. Okay. So we’re almost at, at 50 years. what is the issue about this?
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. So people who adhere to the Society of St. Pist 10th have some concerns here. some of them I think are fair, and some of them maybe not so much. But the, the concern here is that there has been a rupture in the teachings of the church. And so you’re right to note that one of the things that is often overlooked about the society is people tend to think that the problem is ultimately just one of regularizing them and liturgical in nature. But really, if you look at Pope Benedict the 16th, whenever he lifted the four excommunications of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by the Founders Society, St. Pais the 10th, MARCE f in the document, clarifying why he did this, which he wrote to the bishops of the, of the world, he notes ultimately the reason why there’s still a concern with the Society of St.
PA’s 10th. And the reason why they don’t possess a canonical status in the church is not because of disciplinary issues or liturgical issues, but doctrinal reasons. And when he says doctrinal reasons, one of the reasons is because the society of St. Pais, the 10th, tends to reject the Second Vatican Council’s document human on religious liberty. So at the heart of the differences here are doctrinal issues. And again, from the society’s perspective, they feel like, well, the Catholic Church has abandoned its traditional teaching on religious liberty and the role of the state when it comes to religious liberty and perhaps suppression of, of non-Catholic religions and, and so on and so forth.
Cy Kellett:
Alright. 60 years, I, I I don’t know why I said we’re coming up on 50 years, we’re coming up on 60 years, of course. since December, 1965 when the document came out I have to say, I, I think a, in America here in the United States as I think Chesterton and, and others have pointed out, even Catholics are very Protestant. And this Protestant individualism regarding religion is kind of in our bones here in the United States. So what I, is the issue explained it to someone like me who grew up in a place where you’re supposed to say, you know, you do your thing I do my thing. What is the problem with religious liberty?
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. There, there’s multiple things going on here. So for one, there’s a great deal of misunderstanding on what it means to affirm a right to religious liberty. In this document, there’s an incredible amount of confusion on what, what exactly does that mean? And what I’ve found to be very helpful, and it’s often overlooked by the vast majority of people, is there was a bishop who was present at the Second Vatican Council, Bishop Disit, who gave what’s called a lazio prefacing this doct document from the second Vatican Council. What a lazio basically is, is it’s kind of like a explanation that is given to the bishops at the council saying, Hey, here’s what this document means. So not, not only did the second Vatican Council release this document on religious liberty, but there was also a very long speech by Bishop Disit who explained to the bishops before they voted on the document, here’s what it means.
And in that actual speech, which is successful online for free, he tells you what religious liberty is not in the document. And then he tells you what religious liberty actually is. And if you, if you just look at what it’s not and what it is according to how the council fathers understood it, it clears up the vast majority of of controversies here. However, there still are some remaining questions, even after we look at, well, what is religious liberty and what is it not? But just to quickly summarize his speech there, what it’s not, it’s not liberty of conscience, which is what the 19th century popes were really condemning ultimately, and liberty of conscience is this idea that, okay, well, I can just do whatever wa I want in my conscience. My conscience is not to be regulated by anything that God has said revealed. Okay?
So there’s no law binding my conscience to, to one way or another to this or that I, I can just believe whatever I want. I have freedom in my conscience. That’s liberty of conscience, that’s condemned. That is not what the council fathers taught when it comes to religious liberty. It’s also not religious indifferentism. I’m just free to accept whatever religion I want. Absolutely not. Here’s what religious liberty is. According to the council fathers, it’s the right to act on one’s conscience and to be free from external coercion from the state. That’s what religious liberty is. You have a right to act on your conscience, and you’re to be free from the state’s coercion. You have an immunity there. that’s what religious liberty is. And once we understand that, a lot of, lot of the problems are clarified, but there, there are some still remaining questions that need to be addressed even beyond that.
Cy Kellett:
I have. Okay. So, but even in my extremely limited recollections of history, the coercion was used by the state yes. Under the influence of the church, I mean, with the approval of the church mm-hmm. <affirmative> for centuries mm-hmm.
Michael Lofton:
<affirmative> mm-hmm. <affirmative> <laugh>. Yeah. You’re, you’re touching at the heart of the remaining questions. Right. Okay. Cause cause that, that’s what I mean, there are still some questions beyond, okay, well, what does religious liberty mean? And so here’s the heart of the matter. You, you got straight to the point. some people are gonna say, well, look, in the pre conciliary era, you do have popes allowing for this state to coerce people. So maybe in some instances, non-Catholic religions could publicly express express their faith, but that was only an evil to be tolerated. And in some instances, they were not allowed to express their religion publicly, and they were coerced and there, there wasn’t an, an immunity there. Right. Whereas it seems like Vatican two is saying no, they have a right to immunity from the state. So isn’t there rupture here is is kind of the question.
Yeah. And, and in a minute, I’ll maybe we can address well, what happens if there is rupture. But let, let’s just challenge the question of whether or not there actually is rupture by pointing out in the pre conciliary era, the state was acting as an agent of the church. So the state in and of itself does not have any authority to coerce a person. however, when the state acts as an agent of the church, perhaps a Catholic state, yeah. The pre conciliary popes would admit, yes, the state does have the ability to coerce, coerce a person, and an individual doesn’t have necessarily immunity there. However, in, in, in the case of a secular state, now, they don’t have that freedom. They don’t have that. Right. That is the state to coerce someone. Oh, okay. And
Cy Kellett:
So, so the nature of states has changed, in other words mm-hmm. <affirmative> is what the mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So the church is kind of acknowledging a change in the nature of states. and, and so and so changing changing its articulation of what the state can do because the state not acting as an agent of the church is a different thing than the state when it is acting as an agent of the church
Michael Lofton:
Ab Absolutely. So there’s a huge distinction there, and you can see that distinction being made by a really famous professor on this subject, doctor and Thomas Pink, who really teases that out further. And I think that that is a helpful distinction. Now, I will also note that whenever it speaks of an immunity of coercion, even in the context of a secular state, in the second Vatican Council’s document, there’s a proper qualification that it makes there, it says, within due limits, <laugh>. Well, in other words, yes. Right. go
Cy Kellett:
Ahead. Well, no, I mean, I’m thinking of the cases in the United States now where the Church of Satan is opening outreach to elementary school students in the public schools, you know, and saying, well, we have the religious freedom to do this. It does not seem to me that a Catholic has to, it has to just simply say, yep, that’s the way the world works. And you can you can do this, that seem to be, that to have crossed a due limit because their religion does not involve the worship of God.
Michael Lofton:
A absolutely. And so here’s where I think that sometimes we often overlook what the document says. The document is careful to note due limits. And what does it mean by that? Well, it means, you know, if something is going against the common good of society Yeah. Then no, that is not tolerated. Yeah. And there could be some coercion there. Now, what it notes about the common good is that is accessible to the state by means of the moral law <laugh>. So this is important. Oh, it’s not the common good as Yeah, it’s not the common good as just understood by the state. No, no, no, no. It’s not arbitrary. It’s, it states that the common good is actually something that’s defined by the moral law.
Cy Kellett:
So there, there’s a relationship between religious freedom and truth, then
Michael Lofton:
A Absolutely. So, if, if there’s something that can be known by the natural law, like you, you can know that this is evil just by reason alone. You don’t need n divine revelation to tell you this. Right. For instance, murder, you know, the human sacrifices, that would be another example. That’s something you can know by the moral law and natural law. And, and the state is to uphold those things. And so somebody wanted to come around and say, I think we should revive human sacrifices. And, and my, the dictates of my conscience says that I should be able to publicly promote that Vaticans, who wants to say no. No. Actually the state, even a secular state has the right to suppress that.
Cy Kellett:
Yes. Now, it would be very hard in America to, to to get the average person understand why that would be the case for the Church of Satan. But yeah, it’s, frankly, it’s not very hard <laugh>, if you take it from the point of view of Catholic tradition that inculcating children to be enemies of God is not a religious practice that anyone should be free to engage in.
Michael Lofton:
Right. And and it’s funny you bring up, bring up the United States here, because there, there are some interpretations that would in the United States that would allow a person to publicly disseminate perhaps a pamphlet promoting human sacrifices and saying that we should restore that in society. where, whereas the second Vatican council’s again gonna say, Nope, absolutely not. That’s, that’s, that goes beyond the, within due limits. So here’s where I think Vaticans too often gets car characterized. Yeah. So that’s a huge, huge problem there. So if we keep these proper qualifications in mind, I think it helps avoid a lot of the confusion that is is out there. Yeah. There are still, again, a few remaining questions that that could still be teased out further, but that at least addressed the majority of concerns.
Cy Kellett:
Well, let me try to ask you a historical question as well. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, just to clarify something, I mean, even the church, if the church said in the past, the state is operating as its agent and can use coercive power mm-hmm. <affirmative> that was a very limited coercive power like the state was. Yeah. Like I’m thinking of you know, the, the native people of Mexico, you, the state couldn’t just demand that they all be baptized. I mean, you couldn’t, right. You’re not allowed to come in and do that. You can’t demand of Jews that they be baptized.
Michael Lofton:
Right.
Cy Kellett:
So there are, even, even when the state, we could say, well, there was a reason because of this acting as an agent of the church in, in a, in the period of Christendom you, you, you might say it has it, it is permitted and even required to use course of power in matters of religion. It, that was very limited, especially when you’re involved the unbaptized.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah, absolutely. So, so there’s a couple points here. N number one, I would point out the, the document is very careful too, by the way to note that, you know, faith is a gift from God. So it, it’s not something that the state can require someone, even a Catholic state. Yeah. So we, we can’t force somebody, for instance, to be baptized, because again, faith is a gift. It can’t be something that, you know, is demanded of an individual. So it’s, it is careful to note that. But as, as far as the exercise of coercion in a Catholic state, you’re, you’re right to point out, even that is limited. And in fact, in the pre conciliary era, it was limited. They did not go around the, the church didn’t go around just, you know, finding every single heretic out there. <laugh> and coercing though. But no actually there was a lot of leeway there. The sure, the instances where there was some regulation of heretics, it’s when there was a real, real threat to society itself, because society was so intertwined with religion, there could have been a massive upheaval of society itself with a dissemination of certain heresies. So some of those were repressed, but then the vast majority of them were overlooked. Not because the church thinks heresy is okay, but because they weren’t necessarily a threat to society itself.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. So the, the document then dig is not arguing. Everybody has the right in, in a moral sense, for example, to say no to God. But it is arguing that in a legal sense you have the right to a, a, a great variety of, of, of responses to God.
Michael Lofton:
That’s an incredibly important distinction that you’re admitting it, and you’re, you’re accurate about that. It is not saying that anyone has a right to air, but in a secular state, a person does have immunity when they are in air, and they’re expressing their air, however, within due limits. Now, thi this is what the second Vatican Council says in its very first paragraph. I wanna briefly read it because it’s so powerful in offsetting that misunderstanding here, that the misunderstanding being that the Second Vatican Council is just saying religious liberty is you can just believe whatever you want, and you don’t really have to follow the true religion. Here’s what it actually says. It says, quote, first the council professes its belief that God himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness.
So God has made known how people are to be saved. And then it says, we believe that is the council, that this one true religion subsist in the Catholic and apostolic faith, to which the Lord Jesus Christ committed the duty of spreading it abroad to all men. So he, it’s saying, there’s only one true religion. It’s only in the Catholic Church, and there’s a duty on the church’s part to spread it. And then it says, thus he spoke to the apostles, go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in any of the Father, son and Holy Spirit teaching them to observe whatever I’ve enjoined upon you on their part. All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his church, and to embrace the church they come to know and to hold fast to it. So it is emphatically clear, there’s only one true church. There’s only one way to salvation. And people have a duty to pursue the truth and then to hold to it. They do not have liberty of conscience. They don’t have this duty to just put off whatever God is binding their conscience to. All they have is freedom from immunity or freedom from coercion in a certain immunity within due limits.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. So your, your position then I’m gathering is that this, the digitise does not represent a rupture, but it does represent a change, and the change is in regard to what we’re responding to different circumstances. Now,
Michael Lofton:
Spot on. That’s exactly how Benedict himself, Paul Benedict the 16th, expressed that in 2005, in, in 2005, he gave this speech to the College of Cardinals. And it, it’s called his Christmas address. it’s found online, available for free, highly recommended that everybody reads it. And in part of the address, what he does is he explains, here’s how we are to interpret all of Vatican two, where use, where to use this hermeneutic of continuity or reform. We’re, we’re not to see it as departing from the past, but rather preserving the same principles. Now, what he notes in there after that is he does say, but there is some rupture, but not rupture with sacred tradition and our core principles, but just simply rupture with how we’re responding to certain situations. And the reason why is there are different historical situations today, we’re effectively in a society where, you know, pretty much the state is secularized, it’s a little different than before. So because we have different historical situations, the same Catholic principles are gonna look a little different because they’re being applied differently. So the change here is not in sacred tradition or what we believe or the, the base principles that we maintain here, but it’s rather in the application due to changes in circumstances that’s straight from Paule Benedict the 16th.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. One word that I, I, or one little phrase that I hear repeated in this conversation is that error has no rights. And it does seem to me that I think people say, Pope Pius the I said it, I don’t think that he said it, but it, it, it, it does, it has a very Catholic ring. I don’t know if it’s in an official document somewhere or some something, but how do we deal with this, that error, this idea that error has no rights, that that does have a Catholic providence.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. That, that’s a, that’s a very helpful distinction. And, and in fact, this distinction has, has really been brought out since the time of the second Vatican council because some people have tried to say, okay, well, here’s how we can reconcile some of the things that Vatican two says with the Preci era. Because again, some people feel that there’s discontinuity there. And Father Brian Harrison, for instance, is one who came in with a really important distinction that comes into play with what you’re saying there. It, it’s the difference between what’s called use agenda and use Exogen there. And, and basically those are just fancy terms to say there’s a difference between a person having a right to action and versus a right to a person to do something. So, for instance you might not have the right to a particular form of action, such as expressing error publicly.
You might not have that. Right. Positively speaking, but you do have the right to not be coerced by the state whenever you do express that air. Oh, publicly <laugh>. In other words, there’s a difference between we, we would say the individual may have rights, but air has no rights as you put it. So, so that actually is a very helpful distinction. So nobody has the right to publicly disseminate air as far as a positive. Right. But they do have the right negatively speaking to not be coerced by the secular state whenever they do publicly express the air within due limits.
Cy Kellett:
So a again, that would seem almost to go back to that, that you, you don’t have a moral right to the thing, but that doesn’t mean that anyone else has the legal right to stop you.
Michael Lofton:
Right. At least in a secular state. Right. Okay. Right. But here’s where some, some legitimate criticism of dig artist humanity and Vaticans who be, can be offered, here’s somewhere legitimate criticism. And that is, okay, well how does this work then with a Catholic state? Oh, it’s, it’s only addressing a secular state. But w what do we do with a Catholic state? Does a Catholic state have the right to co questions like that aren’t really directly resolved in, in the document? And, and perhaps they should have been
Cy Kellett:
Okay, but here’s a, a, a wider problem that I know is expressed by many people in the same PS the 10th society, and also many people who are just Catholics of a certain persuasion. They’ll say okay, that’s fine that you say that make that distinction if you want, between a secular state and a Catholic state. But what dignified Sumani really did was say, we don’t want Catholic states anymore. And that is a terrible error. They’ll say, they’ll say, no, you, you should, you should say if you’re gonna say what you’re saying, Michael, the I mm-hmm. The ar and I, I’ve had this argument made to me. So I want to reflect that back to you. Sure. If you’re gonna say what you’re saying about the secular state, you need to go one step further and say, the sec, the secular state is not the ideal, and we do want confessional states.
Michael Lofton:
Nowhere in the document does it ever express that confessional states or, and specifically even Catholic states should go away. There, there actually is evidence to the contrary, because it does have parts where dignified Humani does explicitly speak about how, well, if this state does adopt a confession, here’s what is to, to happen. You know? So it’s, it’s not opposed to there being a confessional state, and in fact, there’s no evidence that it’s saying there shouldn’t be a Catholic state in, in fact, there is a clause at the very beginning where it says this quote, therefore it, that is a council leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies towards the religion, the, the true religion and towards the One Church of Christ. So it’s saying, look, Uhhuh, there still is a duty on part of societies. And there there’s a debate on, okay, well, is this referring to states when it comes to societies?
I say, yes, because Bishop Disit indicates that that was the intention of the council fathers in the document. So it is saying the state still has its duty towards the one Catholic Church of Christ. Right. That wouldn’t be in there if the document itself is over overturning that. Now, there, there, there have been some who have said, well, there’s just an internal contradiction in the document. In fact, young Ratzinger, young Joseph Ratzinger, who was a Paris or was a kind of an advisor at the time of the Second Vatican Council who was present there he was of the opinion that there was an internal contradiction here. He felt like, well, that, that, that clause was just inserted last minute, Uhhuh <affirmative>. But it really contradicts everything that came after that. Well, it actually turns out as, as, as Ratzinger got older, he abandoned that view. He doesn’t hold to that anymore. He, he then took the view that no, there, there’s harmony here,
Cy Kellett:
But he, but it does suggest that you’re not crazy to have that point of view. If he was able to hold it at one time, I mean, he may have abandoned it himself, but that doesn’t, that does suggest that it’s at least a permissible view.
Michael Lofton:
I, you know, I I don’t know if maybe, maybe it is permissible if we make some very proper qualifications here. Yeah, I see. Depends on, it depends on what we mean. If we believe that the Catholic church has abandoned its sacred tradition, I don’t think that that’s permissible. However, if what we’re saying is the Catholic Church has reversed a non definitive teaching or something that would be permissible, I would just disagree with that, that position. And, and per, perhaps we can touch on that distinction.
Cy Kellett:
Well, let me ask you first a a, a practical question about in the years following the second Vatican Council, maybe this is a little unfair, because often we read back into the council things that happened after the council, but I do wanna ask you about the fact that it does seem diplomatically like the aba the, the, the Vatican abandoned the idea of, of Catholic states that more or less supported the idea of the secularizing of formerly Catholic states like Spain and, and some of the states in the Americas, that, that they should be secular, that it seemed to prefer the secular state is is other. What, in other words what I’m saying,
Michael Lofton:
You know, somebody may offer that criticism and there could potentially be some legitimate criticism there. I think perhaps we could, we could do a little bit better at promoting confessional states. you know, I asked Professor Dunham when I had him on my, my show one time about this very question because I had him on, he’s an expert in religious liberty, and I said, look, after the second Vatican council, you have a whole bunch of states that are, that just became secularized. Does that con, is that maybe in the second Vatican Council? And he says he doesn’t really see evidence for that rooted in the Second Vatican Council. and he, and he thinks that, you know, those things were already in the works prior to Vatican two, however, that still does, that still doesn’t address. But perhaps could we do better as Catholics and especially the Vatican in, in maybe promoting confessional states more? Yeah, probably. So I do just wanna say to you Michael, before I continue, I mean, I, I’m pressing a lot of these questions not because I feel it, I disagree with you, but I, I want to be fair to those who do have Sure. The other point of view, I, I, i sure it seems to me that your, your perspective is quite sensible, as a matter of fact. And I don’t want give the wrong impression to anybody, but I I, I also think that the objections are quite serious and I mm-hmm. <affirmative>, I, I, I think we have to live in a little bit of a, a fog in that there will be creative personalities who will come after us in the centuries and maybe millennia to come, who will create new ways of governing and new ways of having states that we don’t even know about yet. So, to think that, that, that we have a definitive, or that we could ever make a definitive this is the final word on the relationship mm-hmm. <affirmative> between church and religion and state, is, is that seems like a fool’s errand to me. So I I do, go ahead. You wanted to respond to that. Yeah.
It’s, it’s certainly not the final word. And, and I am of the opinion more should be said here because I, I’m of the opinion that though the document does address some things, it doesn’t address other things. so it would be helpful for the church to add some further clarification here and perhaps even state specifically what method of government it thinks is the best. Obviously it’s gonna propose a confessional state, and that is a confessional Catholic state. That’s, that’s a given, but what specific form of political government, right. That hasn’t really been addressed yet.
Cy Kellett:
Right. Cuz you could have a confessional democracy, for example. Exactly. A confessional oligarchy or, or monarchy. And so even if you said, well, we want confessional states that wouldn’t really resolve much, that wouldn’t correct, that would be, you know does that mean you want it in the constitution? Or does that mean you want a monarch to, to rule in that regard? So one thing that you said is you don’t believe that there’s a rupture, but what if we said, what if we said to the the, to the the modern kind of opponent of digna? Hum. All right, well grant you there was a rupture there. Wh where does that get us? What, what’s our worst case scenario there?
Michael Lofton:
Okay. Yeah. Yeah. One wonderful question, and, and this is one that really touches on my dissertation with magisterial reversals. This is where it interests me the most. I’m, I’m not yet convinced that there’s some kind of reversal or rupture here. I’m open to somebody changing my mind there. I just haven’t seen evidence for that yet. No, nothing that’s conclusive. but let’s just go with a worst case scenario. Let, let’s just say that somebody definitively shows there’s a rupture here. What, what damage does that really do to the church? Now, if you look at the question, it would then be to say, okay, well, the second Vatican council and ecumenical council, that is oh reversed teachings of some 19th century popes. Now, when we look at those 19th century popes and what could potentially be reversed here, were any of those teachings definitive that is infallible?
The, the answer is gonna be no. I see. The, these were, these were acts of popes teaching in encyclicals non definitively. So worst case scenario, if you have a reversal, you have a rupture, you have a change in teaching itself. It would be a reversal of non definitive that is non infallible teachings. Can the church reverse non definitive teachings? Absolutely. The church itself already acknowledges that. The church itself has acknowledged that in, for instance, Donna Verti, that’s a specific document released by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, among other documents where the church recognizes that when it speaks non definitively, that’s not the final word on a question of faith and morals, the church could come back and reform those teachings. Yeah. And, and in fact, entirely reverse them. So worst case scenario, you have an ecumenical counsel reversing some 19th century popes.
Now then the question is, okay, well, which one do I adhere to? You know, if an ecumenical council says one thing, and some 19th century popes say something else, which one do I give my ascent to? And this is where I think Dr. Lawrence King comes into play. He wrote a dissertation on the magisterium, specifically on this question of reversals and also Digna humane. He’s of the opinion that there is a rupture here. Again, I’m not of that opinion. Okay. But he is of the opinion, or at least he takes that position for the sake of his dissertation to, to explain, well, what, what would you do if there’s a, a, a reversal here? And what he really demonstrates very well is that if you do have a rupture, the second Vatican Council would outweigh the teachings of these non definitive teachings of these popes. In other words, you would give your ascent to what Vatican two taught over these 19th century popes, because the second Vatican council taught with a higher authority than all of the 19th century popes combined. That’s worst case scenario.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. I that, and that makes sense to me. A a an ecumenical council is a, is a thing of great authority of, of, of lofty authority above all other authority that we have in practice in the church.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. E especially above the, the accumulation of these 19th century popes. Sure. They don’t overturn Vatican Sue, but some will point out, well, Vatican sue itself taught non definitively on this question. Yes, it did, but it taught non definitively with a higher authority than the 19th
Cy Kellett:
Century. Exactly right. <laugh>. Yeah. It’s like when a general says something non-I, it’s more <laugh> binding than when a kernel does
Michael Lofton:
<laugh>. Right. So, yeah. So at the, the heart of the confusion, especially for those in the society, they feel that there’s been a reversal of something definitive. They feel there’s been a reversal of sacred tradition itself, and that’s what needs to be challenged. Yeah. What the 19th century popes expressed, you have to ask the question, was that in fact sacred tradition or were they themselves out of continuity with other things maybe in the first Yes. 300 years Right. Of the church. Right. And perhaps they were the ones who got it wrong.
Cy Kellett:
Yes. And the, and the early church <laugh> given its position had a completely different standard than the Church of Christendom <laugh>, because, and
Michael Lofton:
That’s what Benedict points out <laugh>. Yeah. He he points that out in the 2005 Christmas address. Yeah.
Cy Kellett:
Right. That, that toleration looked awful good to <laugh> after the first three centuries.
Michael Lofton:
And that’s what Vatican too knows. It says, look, I mean, we as Christians want to be able to, if we’re in a secular state, we wanna be able to exercise our religious liberty, our, our, our Christian beliefs. So upon what basis can we really say that others in a secular state should be coerced? Yeah. Again, though, that’s in the context of a secular state.
Cy Kellett:
All right. Let, I I got two more questions for you, Michael, if you, if you can tolerate me for two more questions. Yeah,
Michael Lofton:
Yeah.
Cy Kellett:
First of all even Catholics who I, I have a great deal of respect for quite centrist in many ways, will sometimes say Vatican two didn’t get it wrong, indignant sumani, but it didn’t do it. In other words, it wasn’t wrong, but it was also wasn’t adequate that it just seems like mm-hmm. <affirmative>, an it strikes them as an inadequate document for the mm-hmm. <affirmative> for the importance of what it took on. What do you make of that criticism?
Michael Lofton:
I think that’s fair. I think that, okay. The document itself needs to explicitly, or at least a future document, since the the time has passed, you know, <laugh>, we’re gonna need to have a separate document here. What we need to do, and what it perhaps should have done is expressed more of the distinction between the Catholic state and a secular state. And I think it could have expressed more clearly the duties of a secular state to adhere to the Catholic religion. Again, there is that clause at the beginning, but it uses the term society instead of state. And perhaps it should have been made that a little bit more clear, and then explain how all of this compares to a Catholic state. Does the Catholic state have the right to coerce individuals who want to publicly express and publicly disseminate air? Yeah. I think the answer is yes, it does have that, but should it have explicitly stated that Yes.
Was it deliberate that they didn’t, perhaps <laugh>, because I, I think they knew if they touched that question, I think it was, in fact, Eves Congar who, who mentioned this, if they touched that question, they knew this would’ve turned into a even bigger debate. In fact, the document, as it already was, went through five drafts before the sixth. one, the, the sixth version, which is the published version. Oh. It had already gone through tremendous amounts of drafts, debates. There was already a great deal of opposition against it. In the final vote, there was 2300 who were in favor and 70 who were against it. but prior to the sixth draft, there were even more bishops who were against it. And, and, and that was a, a good sign because there were so many bishops who were already opposing the document. yeah.
So you know, they, they already had a huge battle on their hands. They knew if they clarified this issue and touched on the confessional state more, there would be even more debates. <laugh>, they just, they on the table, the issue. But you know what, believe it or not, Vatican two is not the only one to table issues. The Council of Trent did that. Yeah. The council of not CIA did that by not even addressing the, whether or not the Holy Spirit is con substantial with a father, that thing wasn’t even addressed at all. So,
Cy Kellett:
Well, that’s a matter of prudence. I mean, at a certain point, you gotta go, there’s only so much we can do. I mean, I, I don’t begrudge them that, but that doesn’t, but but then you have to acknowledge, well, this was tabled. It doesn’t mean that it was resolved, it was tabled. correct. And those are two different things. okay. The way it’s often depicted is that the Americans won you know, because the American system meant that the American Cardinals and bishops had a different view than if some around the world and that the American View won. I think that that’s probably correct. But as an American Catholic, you can’t, I, I don’t think you can say, well, the American system is up to the task of managing religious freedom. I, you, we, we need something better, a better constitution.
And I’m, I’m not one of those people who has the idea that the Constitution is some kind of divinely ordained document. It’s just a document, and it’s not perfect. And we need, you know, if, if you’re gonna make another, you know, if you’re gonna make a United States of Mars or something, you’re gonna need mm-hmm. <affirmative> a better document because the American system won’t actually work with the Catholic Church. Now, many people will say, that’s not true. They’ll tell me to be quiet because it will work. What we have to do is focus on converting the populace to the Catholic faith, because a Catholic populace could make this Constitution work. I, I think that’s naive in the extreme, but but I, I want your view.
Michael Lofton:
Yeah. So I would ask the question if the second Vatican Council notes that the state has a duty towards the true religion and towards the One Church of Christ, and it also notes that there’s also due limits here when it comes to an immunity for coercion, and Right, right. Specifically, if someone goes against the common good, which is defined by the natural law or the moral moral law they don’t have that immunity. I asked the question then, have we done a good job at exercising that in the United States? Last time I checked, this isn’t a confessional state. Yeah. at least towards the Catholic church. Right. and it, and I think that there are some concerns on whether or not we have really upheld the common good on some key questions. Right. Defined by the moral order. Right. Defined by the, the natural law. Have, have we really done a good job at that? Probably not. No. So I, I don’t know if really the American system is really won here in this document. In fact, I think I see some things in the document that would critique the system. Okay.
Cy Kellett:
All right. And and if you’re gonna start your own country, I mean, there’s a lot of good stuff at America, but don’t <laugh>, this is the starting point, not the finish point. MI Michael, I found that very, very helpful. I, I hope our listeners will find it as helpful as I did. it’s, it’s a fascinating topic. I know we could have gone down a hundred different roads because it’s an extremely sensitive and complicated story, but I think for the amount of time we had, what you gave us was very, very helpful. So thank you, Michael.
Michael Lofton:
Oh, thanks for having me. It was an honor.
Cy Kellett:
Michael Lockton, you can find him at Reason and Theology that, and you should find him there and does all sorts of great work. And you also find him here from time to time, and that that’s of a great benefit to us and all of our listeners. we thank you for being our listeners and for being here with us. If you wanna comment on this episode, if there’s especially if you feel I, I might have mischaracterized the objections to Michael because I’m not fluent in what everyone’s objections are. If you’ve got one you’d like us to tackle at a future time, send us a note. We’ll give it a try. That’s at focus@catholic.com, focus@catholic.com. If you’d like to support us financially, you can do so@givecatholic.com. and wherever you’re listening, if you’d give us that five stars and maybe a few nice words that helps to grow the podcast, and we think that’s a good thing, frankly, and if you’d help us with that, we’d appreciate it. I’m Psy Kellett, your host. We’ll see you next time. God willing, right here on Catholic Answers Focus.