The Fenton Diaries
R. Siscoe/
Contiued from Page 9 controversial statements from Dignitatis Humanae (the document on religious liberty) - namely, that those who " do not fulfill their obligation of seeking and adhering to the truth" have a right to religious freedom (immunity from coercion) - was slipped in to the draft at the last minute, without the Council Fathers being told about it.
The Dutch relator, Bishop De Smedt, whose job it was to inform the Fathers of the changes to the revised draft, failed to mention this controversial addition and instead referred to the unchanged part of the paragraph. The only way anyone would have known about this addition (which even the defenders of Dignitatis Humanae struggle to reconcile with Tradition4) is if they read the entire draft for themselves, which was not likely to happen at the last minute when, as Fr. Fenton explained, everything was "being rushed through." Here we find an example of the trickery employed by the Liberals during the Council to push through their agenda. ■
4 Ibid
NB: Fr. Brian Harrison: "One of the many difficulties in interpreting the Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, and reconciling it with traditional doctrine, lies in the fact that while the key article 2 of this document, Dignitatis Humanae (DH), begins by affirming that the right to religious liberty has to do with conscientiously held religious beliefs, it ends by affirming that the same right is enjoyed even by those who are not in good conscience (that is, those who "do not fulfill their obligation of seeking and adhering to the truth"). Curious as to whether this confusing, and at first sight contradictory, treatment of conscience in DH #2 was officially explained to the Council Fathers before they voted on it, I started fishing around in the Acta Synodalia (AS) in our university library. And what I dredged up struck me as a choice example of how that famous ‘Rhine’ flowed into the ‘Tiber’ during Vatican II… The above passage recognizing immunity from coercion for those whose religious propaganda is not in good conscience was absent from the first three drafts of DH. It finally appeared in the fourth (second-last) draft, presented on October 25, 1965, only a few weeks before the end of the Council (cf. AS IV, V, p. 79). Bishop Emil De Smedt, the Dutch relator (official spokesman for the drafting Commission), then gave his relatio (speech) to the assembled Fathers officially explaining this fourth draft and its changes to the previous draft. However, in doing so he did not even mention this important addition to the text! On the contrary, in commenting on the new version of article 2, De Smedt repeatedly stressed the importance of conscience, citing the (unchanged) words in the first paragraph of #2 which assert that the human person must not be forced to act against (or be prevented from acting in accordance with) "his conscience" (‘suam conscientiam’ – see ibid., pp. 101-102). True, the Fathers all had on their desks printed copies of the old and new drafts in parallel columns, but it looks as if De Smedt was hoping that if he didn’t draw their attention to this change, many would either overlook it or not attach much importance to it" (Fr.
Harrison, "Skeletons in the Conciliar Closet" The Remnant newspaper, emphasis added).
■