I never said they did.
How can you not see our society disintegrating before your very eyes?
The United States is probably the most religion-friendly country in Western civilization in the present day. Europe and Canada are much further gone down the path of secularism and indeed persecution of the Church and Christianity. Current day Europe is utterly dechristianized and is morally corrupt and decadent. The United States has nothing to learn from present day Europe. We should hold to our Constitution and defend the freedom of religious exercise that has allowed the Church to prosper here for two hundred yearss
Have you ever read Church teaching (a la Leo XIII0) condemning freedom of religion and freedom of the press? That IS Catholic teaching--NOT the Masonic U.S. constitution.
Dignitatis Humanae is also magisterial teaching. Leo XIII has to be understood in the context of the times, and his teachings to some extent are not universal but apply to the society of the times. He was up against liberal regimes that as a matter of policy were persecuting the Church, and the alternative of legitimate Catholic monarchies was readily available still, at least in southern Europe (not really anywhere else, though). This is a different time. As a confessional Catholic state is not going to protect the Church or Church doctrine in the modern world, it is impractical to hold that up as anything other than an abstract ideal. The Church is best protected in the current religion-unfriendly society by strong guarantees of freedom of religion. Also, the essence of the teaching of Leo XIII was that one does not have a moral right to embrace error. However, it is longstanding Church teaching (the father Lactantius wrote of it) that one should not be coerced in matters of conscience. As for the Constitution being "Masonic", I can only roll my eyes and ask you not to pass me any of the kool-aid you are drinking. I'm glad to know that you are disloyal to our constitution and duly established legitimate government.
ME: Does a Catholic have to hold "de Fide" that the American constitution is the best form of government?
Unam: I never said they did.
ME: So the answer is "No." Catholics are not bound to believe your assertion that America is the ideal. That is good since Leo XIII condemns this "Americanist" idea in his encyclical. You just happen to believe it is "historically conditioned." So are your opinions. It is just that anyone who does not believe the U.S. to be the BEST, you subjectively label as "disloyal," "unpatriotic" and anything else that comes to your mind. Or should I say, sentiments?
ME: Have you ever read Church teaching (a la Leo XIII0) condemning freedom of religion and freedom of the press? That IS Catholic teaching--NOT the Masonic U.S. constitution.
Unam: Dignitatis Humanae is also magisterial teaching.
ME: Which must be read "in light of Tradition," not vice versa, per the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger. It is also the lowest level of magisterial teaching authority.
Unam: Leo XIII has to be understood in the context of the times,
ME: Condemned proposition. This is called "historicism." Through and through.
Unam: ...and his teachings to some extent are not universal but apply to the society of the times.
ME: Sort of like... Dignitatis Humanae, huh? Only the 1960s are over, and the "times" that were being read THEN are quite different NOW, aren't they. I would say the "signs of the times" tell us something different than the utopian prognosticators in the 1960s.
Unam: He was up against liberal regimes that as a matter of policy were persecuting the Church, and the alternative of legitimate Catholic monarchies was readily available still, at least in southern Europe (not really anywhere else, though). This is a different time.
ME: With the same condemned principles as found in your assertions. When exactly do "the signs of the times" change? When do we know to be prognosticating for a different reading?
You have done NOTHING to rebut one iota of Dr. Rao's essay. Not one.
Let me let you in on something: Dignitatis Humanae was not UNIVERSAL, and is historically conitioned. It also reaffirms the "traditional teaching of the Church", directly the opposite of how you would have us read it.
From Leo XIII's encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae against Americanism:
"The rule of life laid down for Catholics is not of such a nature that it cannot accommodate itself to the exigencies of various times and places."
Same encyclical:
"He alone could wish that some Christian virtues be adapted to certain times and different ones for other times who is unmindful of the apostle's words: "That those whom He foreknew, He predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son."— Romans viii, 29."