Talk:Dignitatis humanae

Controversy

Perhaps something of the history of the document's controversy ought to be added?

---

I will be posting a variety of notes on this document derived from research I did on a recent paper so it will be under construction for a while. Claude Muncey

[23 April 2005]

---

I have corrected some minor slips and such, made some useful identifications and links such as Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which was only identified as "Unity" and introducing useful Main article:... headings to some sections for further support and depth. The introduction needed adjusting to bring it better into line with the history of ideas, but I made no changes that aren't mainstream. --Wetman 22:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I realise that putting an NPOV heading appears quite aggressive, and I want to make sure that no one feels that this is the case. I feel that there are a number of assumptions in this article that need to be dealt with:

• While it deals with the liberal view in quite a lot of detail the traditionalist view, especially the traditionalist criticisms during and after the council, is given less room.
• The Conservative Catholic (as opposed to Trad) view that Dignitatis was not a substantial change in Catholic teaching is not dealt with
• John Courtney Murray is treated as the central figure giving a perritus centric view

I'm not saying that the bias is deliberate, and for that reason I was rather unwilling to put on the tag, but as I will hopefully be editing this article in some depth it is best that the motives for the edits are telegraphed in advance and that misunderstandings are avoided. JASpencer 13:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there have been no substantial changes to the article in the year it's been tagged for POV, and that there has been no further discussion of the issue. Since the tagger has failed to make any changes to address the issue and no other supporters have stepped forward, I suggest the POV tag be removed. Phyesalis 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree ClaudeMuncey 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag.--Alabamaboy 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dignitatis Humanae and Humanae Vitae

The two Church documents have often been contrasted by supporters and opponents of the encyclical. It should be mentioned as to how Dignitatis Humanae related to contraception and abortion. ADM (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dignitatis Humanae and Islam

Some dissertation on the impact of Dignitatis Humanae with regards to Christian-Islam relations would also be welcomed. After all, Christian proselytism is still forbidden in the majority of Islamic countries, and converts to Christianity may be executed. Other countries such as Russia, India, Israel, Spain, Mexico, France, Vietnam and China have at times been problematic with regards to religious freedom, as defined by the conciliar document. ADM (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's why DH objectively contraddicts Syllabus: If there is any ambiguity, tell me.

An important information is missing in this article: the point in Dignitatis Humanae that contraddicts Syllabus and other previous teachings of Catholic Churchs. The point is this: a right contained in the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" of 1789, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

Article X - No one may be questioned about his opinions, [and the] same [for] religious [opinions], provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.

This article clearly adfirms that every citizen of a state has the right to pubblicly express any religious (or also irreligious) opinion, included public manifestations of worship and press of works to propagandize these opinions.

This right was condemned by Gregory XVI in the Mirari Vos (he defined it "deliramentum"), by the Syllabus, arriving to Pius XII (speech "Ci riesce", 1953). From Leo XIII ("Libertas praestantissimum") the Church adds only an exception: in the countries where there is an invincible religious pluralism, the Church permits the toleration (not the right) to non-catholics worship and propaganda, only because the prohibition of it can conduct to a greater evil (i.e. a civil war). The toleration, however is temporary, due to the contingent situations, while the purpose by the Catholic Church remains arrive to a country where only the Catholics have the right to public worship and propaganda, non-Catholics are not forced by the Catholic Church to the conversion to Catholic faith (religious freedom of the conscience or internal forum freedom) but this religious freedom is not the same of freedom of public worship and propaganda.

In the Dignitatis Humanae this teaching about freedom of public worship and public press of propaganda works really changes: it's no longer prohibited, but the Church declares it a basis of the society. The Church adfirms only that individuals and society have the moral (only moral, not legal) duty of find the only true Catholic faith, but the State mustn't force the individuals to a conversion to the Catholic faith.

For this reason, i think is clear that DH contraddicts Syllabus. If there is any ambiguity or error in my reasonings, tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.4.254.50 (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont think Dignitatis Humanae ever mentions public press of propoganda and the Church has always taught that Conversions shouldnt be forced.

No, Dignitatis Humanae mentions public speak, press and propaganda, these are the words "no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits." The Catholic Church before DH "taught that Conversions shouldnt be forced" and non-Catholic people were allowed to affirm and practice their religion only privately but The Church forbade non-Catholic people to practice their cults in public. At most the Church granted them "provisional tolerance" if the non-Catholics were too numerous or too powerful, but the ultimate goal was to suppress public demonstrations and non-Catholics propaganda. The following text by Martin Rhonheimer explains this well:http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1347670bdc4.html?eng=y --Myron Aub (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dignitatis humanae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211202206/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070904074425/http://www.stjames-cathedral.org:80/Prayer/vatican2-4.htm to http://www.stjames-cathedral.org/Prayer/vatican2-4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211202206/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"An example"

The article currently states:

The result was that as of the mid-20th century, an example of Catholic church–state relations was the Catholic situation in Spain (nacionalcatolicismo), where the Catholic Church:

• was officially recognized and protected by the state,
• had substantial control over social policy, and
• had this relationship explicitly set out in a concordat.

Well, yes, it was "an" example, but it would be preferable to explain that to some in the Catholic Church, it was seen as a particularly good example from the Church's point of view as of, say, 1953 (when the Concordat of 1953 with Spain was adopted). What term can we use other than "an example" to indicate that some in the Church wanted to see more countries treat the Church like Spain did? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)