Has the Catholic Church changed since Vatican II? [Part 2/3]

7.      How does that justify changing stance on religious liberty?

Since the Church is no longer recognized by the State and society as the only true Church, she can no longer speak of condemning the idea of a secular state. The condemnations of Pius IX, Pius X and even Pius XI and XII were directed to try and prevent such a separation or correct the situation as soon as it had happened. But now that the change had taken place and the likelihood of a quick turnaround back to the correct path was unlikely, the Church had to adjust her approach. 

We cannot forget that Dignitatis Humanae which presents the new teaching of the Church on religious liberty clearly states 

“…it leaves untouched the traditional Catholic doctrine about the moral duty of men and societies to the true religion and the only Church of Christ.”

The Church then proceeds to describe a framework of religious liberty based on the human dignity of the person (as opposed to the duty owed toward the truth and the Church for such a duty is no longer recognized by the State or society). It seems here that the Church was more concerned of using the commonly acknowledged concept of human dignity at the time to build a case for the protection of the rights of her faithful. Ironically, as the concept of human dignity becomes more and more distorted (for what it means to be “human” was never quiet understood by modern society as Gaudiem et Spes points out), we see renewed attacks on religious liberty today.

 

Signing of Lateran Treaty

 

8.      Should there not be a duty for the Church to insist on making the state Catholic and recognize her authority?

I believe the answer is no. If we were to look at St. Peter, the first Vicar of Christ, he lived in a time where his temporal authority and the dignity of his office were not recognized by any of the States. St. Peter did not ask that it be recognized. Neither did he even proceed to speak of a duty of the State to promote the Catholic religion. He simply worked to make the society Catholic. When a society becomes Catholic, it naturally comes to a recognition of the dignity of the office of Peter and the Church. It is then that they voluntarily recognize the full scope of authority held by the Pope and the Church. One cannot simply force it on to a secular society. 

However, once the Church is recognized and accepted by society, it is the duty of the Church to do her best to keep the faithful from falling away from it. That is why the good Popes prior to the council attempted to stop the slide toward this great cataclysm we see today. But the men and women of power at the time did not heed their warnings and now we have arrived back to a situation in the world closer to the early Church. 

9.      How does all of this justify the shift toward dialogue rather than a call to convert all men in to the Catholic faith?

With the spread of indifferentism, the concept of being told that one is wrong about their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is considered unacceptable. A missionary preacher can no longer go in to a street intersection and just preach repentance and salvation. If such preaching were wide spread, it can even bring down the arm of the State against the Church as a public nuisance. Amidst all of this, the rise in individualism and the extreme diversity in needs (or reasons for confusion) even within a small geographical location had made it difficult to find a common concern to address when preaching to a mass audience. So from the perspective of the Church, the modernist culture has walled itself up against the traditional approach of spreading the good news.

One may point out that preaching the truth was always considered a public nuisance and that is why almost all the first Apostles were martyred. However, one must keep in mind that the unlike in the past, the Church and her hierarchy is a very visible and localized entity (which is a good thing). Therefore, if the State were to desire taking action to suppress the Church as a result of explicit preaching, that would be undesirable. Considering the low likelihood of converting persons through such preaching in street corners, it seems reasonable to avoid it.

Therefore the Church chose to engage other faiths and the irreligious through dialogue. She tolerates portraying her approach to dialogue as an opportunity for both parties to mutually enrich each other. The fact that the Church is the only true Church can no longer be stated at the outset for such a thing is irrelevant to world of religious indifferentism. 

So the end desired result is still conversion but the Church has to describe it in and engage in it in terms that are culturally acceptable to the world.

10.      Is this a desirable state of affairs?

I think the answer is no. One would imagine that dialogue of this kind is always very slow and makes it difficult to speak the truth about other faiths directly. On the other hand, the command to Evangelize has a more urgent tone for the salvation of souls is at risk. 

We see problems today in the fact that the Catholic Church rarely points out the faults of another faith. She still tells the faithful that apostasy is a sin but this point has started to carry less weight when the only emphasis with respect to other faiths is in speaking of truths in common with Catholicism. 

The same hesitancy to mention the errors of other faiths (and that of irreligion) that lead people away from God and salvation is also a problem on the topic of evangelizing. Every document released since Vatican II on the topic avoids mentioning the traditional reason for evangelizing; it has always been to save those who are outside the Church for they will very likely perish to the fires of hell. Since the Church is interested in having dialogue with those outside of her, she finds it difficult to state such a thing and still have good relations in dialogue. The usual insistence for evangelizing is based on bringing others to the complete truth which is only present in the Catholic Church (which seems to be not as jarringly incompatible with modern social perception). But one can legitimately wonder why it is so urgent or even necessary to bring others to the fullness of truth if they are saved as they are. 

Overall, I think anyone can see that Ecumenism is a compromise by the Church to carry out her mission in today’s society. Like with any compromise, it causes problems for the Church as well. Today, the confusion caused through ecumenism is emerging in the shape of a rising level of indifferentism inside the Church as well as lack of enthusiasm to preach the gospel. The main emphases of some missionary groups have tended to become centered on handling temporal poverty or solving some temporal problems without any attempt to convert. 

Sadly, this is a compromise that the Church has had to make in order to reach out to the very world that had driven itself to such a crisis. (Continued to Part 3)