Ene­mies of so-called “innova­tions” in Vat­i­can II like to cite the Syl­labus of Errors in order to claim that the Coun­cil con­tains Mod­ernist here­sies. For exam­ple, they like to cite No. 15, in which Pius IX con­demns the belief that “Every man is free to embrace and pro­fess that reli­gion which, guid­ed by the light of rea­son, he shall con­sid­er true.” This, say dis­ci­ples of Lefeb­vre, con­tra­dicts Dig­ni­tatis Humanae, which insists upon reli­gious free­dom. But guess what else Pius IX con­demns in that Syl­labus? These pre-Vat­i­can II doc­u­ments are full of sur­pris­es!

Accord­ing to Don­um Ver­i­tatis, con­science gives us no ratio­nale to dis­sent from the Church. Con­science is “supreme,” but not sub­jec­tive, and not inde­pen­dent from the Church. “Argumen­tation appeal­ing to the oblig­a­tion to fol­low one’s own con­science,” the CDF says, “can­not legit­i­mate dis­sent.” Although every believ­er “must fol­low his con­science, he is also oblig­ed to form it. … Set­ting up a supreme magis­terium of con­science in oppo­si­tion to the mag­is­teri­um of the Church” is “incom­pat­i­ble with the econ­o­my of Rev­e­la­tion.”

In Don­um Ver­i­tatis, the CDF lists sev­er­al forms dis­sent against the Mag­is­teri­um might take. (This is the fourth post in a series that I link to in the text.) Dis­sent,” the CDF clar­i­fies, is dif­fer­ent from “per­son­al dif­fi­cul­ties.” One must dis­tin­guish. You can work through a per­son­al dif­fi­cul­ty; but to dis­sent is to rebel. “Spir­i­tu­al harm” comes of dis­sent. There are five kinds: philo­soph­i­cal lib­er­al­ism, manip­u­la­tion of pub­lic opin­ion, accep­tance only of infal­li­ble teach­ings (sound famil­iar?), argu­men­tum ad pop­u­lum, and false appeals to con­science. Dis­sent is a “leav­en of infi­deli­ty.”