This is a translation of an article that Pietro Pavan wrote in the Concilium journal on the topic of Dignitatis Humanae. As a primary influence at the council in drafting the document, and the ghost writer for John XXIII’s encyclical Pacem en Terris, his interpretation is of great weight when evaluating the original intention and meaning of the decree. ____________________ "Throughout the centuries, the Church has reaffirmed repeatedly and always acknowledged, at least theoretically, the right of human beings not to be forced to adhere to the Christian religion; and this for the reason already mentioned, that the act of faith, even though obligatory, can only be elicited freely. For centuries upon centuries, however, Christian civilization did not recognize the right not to be forcibly prevented from externally professing one's own religion when it was not the true religion or the one held to be true. The reason lies in the fact that the recognition of that right presupposed: that human beings had become more conscious of their own dignity, lived and expressed in terms of personal responsibility; that it had become a universal conviction that rights do not directly or formally apply to spiritual values—such as, for example, truth, moral goodness, and justice; that the subjects of rights are only persons, whether physical or moral; that juridical relations are always intersubjective relations, or relations between persons and persons, and not between persons and spiritual values; and the fundamental rights of the person that pertain to the values of the spirit must be conceived as immunity from external coercion, guaranteeing freedom in cultivating and assimilating those values. It presupposed, moreover, that a greater awareness of the dignity of the human person—a dignity conceived as the demand for interior freedom and immunity from external coercion in the exercise of responsibility—would influence the juridical organization and the exercise of civil authority; that is to say, that the "rule of law" (estado de derecho) would come to be conceived and realized, at least to a certain degree and in some manner, and that the rule of law would free itself more and more from the currents of thought from which it had historically emerged—rationalist, immanentist, monist, positivist, historicist, agnostic, and liberal currents—and that it would become clear how, in its essential elements, the State thus conceived can be fully reconciled with the Christian vision of life." academia.edu/178464515/Pietr…

This is a translation of Pietro Pavan's 1964 memorandum to Paul VI on the topic of religious liberty. It provides a window into the thinking of the Church at that time, especially the different ways the minority and majority groups of bishops understood what the Church was going to be teaching in Dignitatis Humanae. academia.edu/178464073/Pietr…

Pietro Pavan, who wrote Pacem en Terris for John XXIII, and who was deeply involved in drafting Dignitatis Humanae at the Council, presented this paper to the Pope during the Council, explaining the minority and majority position among the bishops regarding how to understand and express religious liberty. Important for debates about the meaning of DH, Pavan tells us that it was a minority position that wanted to frame the teaching in terms of mere tolerance rather than a human right for non-Catholics, and that the majority position believed the genuine human right for liberty among even non-Catholics could be explained by reference to Pacem en Terris, and reconciled with prior magisterial teachings by way of historical contextualization. ________________________ “With regard to the substance of the problem, the Fathers agree, it may be said unanimously, on one very important point: religious freedom today must be recognized for everyone; and it is good that the Council affirm and proclaim this. However, concerning the reasons why religious freedom today must be recognized for everyone, the Fathers are fundamentally divided into two groups, though there is a considerable disparity in the number of adherents to one group and the other. Minority Group The doctrinal-pastoral position supported by the minority group can be summarized in three points: a) Religious freedom today must be recognized for everyone: Catholics and non-Catholics; Christians and non-Christians; believers and non-believers. It is appropriate for the Council to affirm and proclaim this. b) Religious freedom can be affirmed as a genuine right of the person only for Catholics. The reason is that only Catholics are in the truth in the religious sphere, while all others are in error; and a right can be founded only upon truth, never upon error. Therefore, non-Catholics cannot possess a genuine right to profess their religion, that is, a false religion. c) Nevertheless, today, at least as a fundamental directive in the social-civil regulation of relations within human coexistence, religious freedom should be recognized or, more precisely, granted also to non-Catholics as a tolerance for reasons of the common good: both the common good of individual political communities and the common good of the entire human family; as well as the common good of individual Catholic communities and of the Universal Church. As regards the authority for their position, the Fathers believe that they can ground their thesis in the Syllabus, in the teaching of Leo XIII, and in the teaching of Pius XII, expressed in his address to Catholic jurists on December 6, 1953. The reference to Pius XII is considered objective, even though it cannot be denied that previously the same Pontiff had opened another perspective on the matter. Majority Group The doctrinal and pastoral position supported by the majority group can likewise be set out in three stages. a) Religious freedom must be recognized for all human beings as a fundamental right of the person: the Council must affirm and proclaim this in clear and unequivocal terms. b) The Fathers vigorously defend their thesis, but they do not wish to adduce intrinsic reasons to demonstrate it: they almost seem to be saying that there is no need to prove what is self-evident. Nevertheless, two reasons repeatedly reappear in their position. Today it is no longer tolerable for Religion to be treated as an element of discrimination among citizens of the same political community; that is, it is no longer tolerated that within the same political community—especially if it is a political community advanced in the economic, social, political, and cultural spheres—there should be citizens who, in the religious sphere, can breathe freely because that freedom is a right recognized as belonging to their person, and citizens who, in the religious sphere, can breathe only through a dropper because their freedom is a concession or a gift. Today more than ever, the Church needs freedom in order to carry out her mission fruitfully in the world. Yet today more than ever, the Church can succeed in defending her freedom with a certain effectiveness when she becomes an advocate and vindicator of human freedom, especially of human freedom in the most critical sphere, which is the religious sphere. The Council cannot fail to pronounce upon religious freedom: given the universal expectation concerning the matter, the disappointment would be profound throughout the entire human family. However, since it must pronounce upon the matter, it cannot affirm and proclaim religious freedom as a right of the person for Catholics and as tolerance for non-Catholics: it must affirm and proclaim religious freedom as a right of the person for everyone; otherwise the reaction throughout the world would be immediate and extremely strong, with negative consequences of incalculable scope. The result of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council would be the opposite of what John XXIII intended when he convoked it. As regards the authority for their position, the Fathers believe that they can ground their thesis in the teaching of Pius XII expressed in his 1942 Christmas Radio Message, and even more so in the encyclical Pacem in terris of John XXIII. But they also believe that their thesis is, substantially, in harmony with the traditional teaching of the Church, and they think that the statements on the matter in the Syllabus and in Leo XIII do not constitute insurmountable difficulties; for, they observe, those statements must be understood within the historical context of the time and, above all, in relation to the errors that the Pontiffs were seeking to dispel.” Taken from Acta Synodalia, volume VI, pars III, pp. 113–122. archive.org/details/ASVI.3/p…

I had not before noticed Pope Benedict's textual reference to John Courtney Murray in his famous Christmas Address on the hermenuetic for the second Vatican council. Benedict therein spoke of concrete historical situations and the continuity of principles: "Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned." This statement comes in the context of his discussion about religious liberty. John Courtney Murray, the most important influence leading to the decree of the council, in an article he wrote on the subject (On the Government Repression of Heresy), uses the same language of concrete historical applications and enduring principles: "Historically, however, both in fact and theory, they have had formulations with divergent accents and systematizations with divergent tendencies; and each principle has seen a variety of concrete applications."

The priest benefits from absolving penitents also because it is in hearing the sins of his people that he learns where his homilies and ministerial efforts should be most directed, where his flock needs help most. In this vein, the Pope and the bishops should gather general data from priests around the world on this topic, to help guide the pastoral direction of the Church.

The answer was Pope Francis and Evangelii Gaudium: “There are ecclesial structures which can hamper efforts at evangelization, yet even good structures are only helpful when there is a life constantly driving, sustaining and assessing them. Without new life and an authentic evangelical spirit, without the Church’s “fidelity to her own calling”, any new structure will soon prove ineffective. I dream of a “missionary option”, that is, a missionary impulse capable of transforming everything, so that the Church’s customs, ways of doing things, times and schedules, language and structures can be suitably channeled for the evangelization of today’s world rather than for her self-preservation.” vatican.va/content/francesco…

Folks debating whether Leo will overturn Amoris Laetitia…. (1) the reduction of AL to a footnote shows an unseriousness, an idolatry of controversy. Have these people even read AL? the Pope is concerned first and foremost with the family; the footnote being simply that (2) it’s no surprise given they only know of the footnote and therefore manifest that they read little to nothing, but in his public speeches, Leo has already explicitly affirmed the footnote several times, highlighting and emphasizing Pope Francis’ pastoral approach for atypical situations which deviate from the norm (3) run from these people - don’t engage with them, let them disappear from your algorithm - and find accounts who are actually conversant with the Magisterium rather than mere controversialists

The new Digger movie is a mix of “Don’t Look Up” and Megalopolis/The Royal Tenenbaums. It’s a bit on the nose in some ways, and the moral messaging is well-trodden and goes as high as good earthly wisdom but no higher. Overall, probably not worth the trip to the theatre, but if you can catch it for free at home one day when you have nothing else to do, it could suffice.

The prophets of doom obsess with Catholic theology but completely ignore what the Church actually teaches. If a person was paying a modicum of attention to what the Vatican has been saying about synodality, they would know that synodality is always couched in relation to primacy, and the need for the higher office to not only listen to their inferiors, but discern whether their voice is coming from God or themselves, is always emphasized. The Angelicum had a conference on Synodality a couple days ago and the risk of a Synodality apart from Primacy turning into Congregationalism was highlighted. youtube.com/live/erh4B3PE3wE…

On March 12, 2000, Pope John Paul II led the Church in a historic confession of ecclesial sins. Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger read this portion of the prayer along with JP2, apologizing for and seeking forgiveness for past times when the Church endorsed religious coercion: ————- II. CONFESSION OF SINS COMMITTED IN THE SERVICE OF TRUTH A representative of the Roman Curia: Let us pray that each one of us, 
looking to the Lord Jesus, meek and humble of heart, 
will recognize that even men of the Church, 
in the name of faith and morals, 
have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel 
in the solemn duty of defending the truth. Silent prayer. The Holy Father: Lord, God of all men and women, 
in certain periods of history 
Christians have at times given in to intolerance 
and have not been faithful to the great commandment of love, 
sullying in this way the face of the Church, your Spouse. 
Have mercy on your sinful children 
and accept our resolve 
to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, 
in the firm knowledge that truth 
can prevail only in virtue of truth itself. 
We ask this through Christ our Lord. R. Amen. R. Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie, eleison; Kyrie eleison. A lamp is lit before the Crucifix. vatican.va/news_services/lit…

“Brothers and sisters: Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious,if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

A manifestation of the moral degeneration of our country is the way people get tribally impassioned and uber opinionated about events in the news - when if they were honest, they would admit they have only have access to second-hand and conflicting stories about said event, with no way of knowing what’s actually happening. But we settle in to “our side’s” reaction, and work ourselves up into a disgust and ridicule of everyone else reacting in the other tribe’s manner.

House sitting for my parents and found my old letterman jacket in the closet 😎

Often missed in the death penalty debate, is Pope Francis did not say the use of lethal force and killing is inadmissible, but only that the death penalty is. He mentions the dignity of the person, but not as an obstacle to lethal force per se - he affirms killing people when necessary for self defense, the protection of innocent life and society, etc. He affirms the taking the life of the perpetrator to save the life of the victim(s). Why the death penalty is seen as inadmissible is because it’s not necessary to protect life. In that context, lethal force is an assault on the dignity of the person because there is no life-saving necessity for taking their own life. They aren’t, so to speak, mere victims of the principle of double effect, but rather, the intended targets. A person may not agree with Pope Francis on this - I don’t think the traditional teaching made the death penalty contingent on the lack of sufficient jails - but they should at least understand him accurately.