Dr. Thomas Pink, Professor of Philosophy at King's College, London, drills deeper into the religious liberty question, one aspect among many that has been highlighted in the Traditionalist debate, hosted online by Sandro Magister and The Remnant Newpaper. (A synopsis of the debate and links can be found here.)
Please read Dr. Pink's essay at Rorate Cæli at this link. His treatise is in direct response to Fr. Martin Rhonheimer's essay in Nova et Vetera.
Dr. Pink's fascinating treatment of the question of religious liberty hinges on the realization that the Church's right to guide and coerce in matters of religion is de fide due to the nature of baptism. Thus, the issue needs be treated from the perspective of a theology of baptism, rather than from emphasizing the Church's social teachings about the state.
Dr. Pink highlights that the authority to coerce in matters of faith belong by right to the Church, not the state, and that if the state is involved in coercion in regards to religion, it does so legitimately only as a state governed and made up of the baptized and only in service to the Church, per the obligations of baptism. This in turn is dependent upon the Church's policies that have been proven to change given the different historical circumstances she has found herself.
Dignitatis humanae, Dr. Pink asserts, did not change the teaching that the Church has authority to coerce in matters of religion, but rather side-stepped the issue entirely to highlight that the Church has never taught that the state has a native authority to coerce in matters of religion.
Very interesting, but the latest issue of APROPOS from Scotland carries a definitive critique of this issue which shows in clear and lucid terms the utter folly of Dignitatus Humanae.
ReplyDeleteMr Pink's thoughts are interesting, but he misses the point about the truly revolutionary ideas that permeated DH.