Does the Conciliar church actually teach modernist religious liberty?

[Daniel]

Most traditionalists say that Vatican II and the Conciliar church teach the heretical version of religious liberty: that men have a right to practice false religions.

What I'm wondering is, is this what the Conciliar church actually teaches, or is this a mere straw man? I've seen a small minority  claiming that the Conciliar church teaches no such thing, but teaches "religious liberty" only in the same way that the Church has always taught it: that the state is not allowed to interfere with true religion.

I recall I briefly took a look at the Vatican II documents a while back, and I couldn't make sense of them. At face value they seem to be teaching the former (at least as I interpret them), but I do see (giving them the benefit of the doubt) that they do sound like they might be teaching the latter rather than the former.

[Michael Wilson]

Since there is some dispute about what the Conciliar Decree "Dignitatis Humanae" actually teaches; there is always the post Conciliar magisterium that we can appeal to John Paul II in an official statement:
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1980/november/documents/hf_jp_ii_spe_19801114_atto-helsinki.html
MESSAGE OF JOHN PAUL II
ON THE VALUE AND CONTENT OF FREEDOM
OF CONSCIENCE AND OF RELIGION   

Friday, 14 November 1980

Church's Thinking on the Subject

3. The Catholic Church has synthesized her thinking on this subject in the Second Vatican Council's Declaration, Dignitatis humanae, promulgated on December 7, 1965, a document which places the Apostolic See under a special obligation.

This declaration had been preceded by Pope John XXIII's Encyclical, Pacem in terris, dated April 11, 1963, which solemnly emphasized the fact that everyone has "the right to be able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his conscience."

The same declaration of the Second Vatican Council was then taken up again in various documents of Pope Paul VI, in the 1974 Synod of Bishops' message, and more recently in the message to the United Nations Organization during the papal visit on October 2, 1979, which repeats it essentially: "In accordance with their dignity, all human beings, because they are persons, that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and, therefore, bearing a personal responsibility, are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and to direct their whole lives in accordance with its demands" (Dignitatis humanae, no. 2). "The practice of religion by its very nature consists primarily of those voluntary and free internal acts by which a human being directly sets his course towards God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind. But man's social nature itself requires that he give external expression to his internal acts of religion, that he communicate with others in religious matters and that he profess his religion in community" (Dignitatis humanae, no. 3).

Therefore, man having reason and free will and the obligation to seek religious truth, (true) therefore has the right to practice the religion that he believes is true, in private and in public; alone and with others.(false).

[Justin Martyr]

The Church has always taught that no merely human power can coerce in religious matters; only the spiritual power (the Church) can or the temporal power when it is a servant of the spiritual power. This is the same thing Pope Leo XIII taught. The state when not subject to the Church can't coerce anyone in spiritual matters.  This would naturally imply that man ought to have a civil right to freedom from coercion in religious matters, from merely human powers, due to his dignity as a rational creature made in the image of God and his moral obligation to freely accept the gospel. This right would not apply in situations where the State is an agent of the Church or as a limitation to the Church's own coercive powers, as Pius IX and the other preconciliar Popes taught with such wonderous clarity.

It should also be noted that the State has a moral obligation to act in service of the Church and as her agent (which Vatican II affirms). However, given that the state has refused to fulfill this obligation in modern times, the Church had to clarify her teachings on religious liberty as a result of the Church facing a situation she hadn't in over 1600 years: the existence and wide spread propagation of secular, anti-catholic states, along with the absence of confessional Catholic states.

As far as apparent contradictions go, the Letter of Pope Nicholas I to the Bulgarians vs. Ad Extirpanda by Pope Innocent II is more difficult to reconcile than Pre and Post conciliar views on religious liberty, at least for me. Nicholas I essentially calls torture intrinsically immoral. Granted, the teachings on use of torture can be reconciled once one pays careful attention to the text and approaches it with the understanding that the magisterium can't contradict itself, but it's still not overly easy. Surely if one is a sedeplenist one is bound as a Catholic to approach the Post-Conciliar magisterium in this way as well.

[Michael Wilson]

J.M. Stated:

The Church has always taught that no merely human power can coerce in religious matters; only the spiritual power (the Church) can or the temporal power when it is a servant of the spiritual power. This is the same thing Pope Leo XIII taught. The state when not subject to the Church can't coerce anyone in spiritual matters.  This would naturally imply that man ought to have a civil right to freedom from coercion in religious matters, from merely human powers, due to his dignity as a rational creature made in the image of God and his moral obligation to freely accept the gospel. This right would not apply in situations where the State is an agent of the Church or as a limitation to the Church's own coercive powers, as Pius IX and the other preconciliar Popes taught with such wonderous clarity.

The Church has always taught that the power of the state comes from God and therefore the power of the state is not "merely a human power".
Vatican II teaches that human beings have the right not only to not be impeded in the private practice of their religion but also in their public practice; Also there is no "right" to practice a false religion either in public or private. which is also against traditional Church teaching as for example Leo XIII in "Libertas".
I might add, the praxis after Vatican II was to force the Catholic states such as Spain, Malta and Colombia to change their constitutions to allow the public practice of false religions, which demonstrates that the Vatican interpreted D.H. Not in the restricted sense that its apologists would have it, as only the right to "freedom from coercion"; but in the broader sense of a "right to practice a false religion" i.e. The famous "Liberty of Conscience" condemned many times before Vatican II.

[Justin Martyr]

J.M. Stated:

The Church has always taught that no merely human power can coerce in religious matters; only the spiritual power (the Church) can or the temporal power when it is a servant of the spiritual power. This is the same thing Pope Leo XIII taught. The state when not subject to the Church can't coerce anyone in spiritual matters.  This would naturally imply that man ought to have a civil right to freedom from coercion in religious matters, from merely human powers, due to his dignity as a rational creature made in the image of God and his moral obligation to freely accept the gospel. This right would not apply in situations where the State is an agent of the Church or as a limitation to the Church's own coercive powers, as Pius IX and the other preconciliar Popes taught with such wonderous clarity.

The Church has always taught that the power of the state comes from God and therefore the power of the state is not "merely a human power".
Vatican II teaches that human beings have the right not only to not be impeded in the private practice of their religion but also in their public practice; Also there is no "right" to practice a false religion either in public or private. which is also against traditional Church teaching as for example Leo XIII in "Libertas".
I might add, the praxis after Vatican II was to force the Catholic states such as Spain, Malta and Colombia to change their constitutions to allow the public practice of false religions, which demonstrates that the Vatican interpreted D.H. Not in the restricted sense that its apologists would have it, as only the right to "freedom from coercion"; but in the broader sense of a "right to practice a false religion" i.e. The famous "Liberty of Conscience" condemned many times before Vatican II.

That the State receives its power from God; granted. That this gives the state authority in the spiritual sphere independent of subjection to the Church; denied. Pope Boniface VIII lays out quite clearly in Unam Sanctam what the sphere of the temporal power is and how it ought to be used.

That a right to practice a false religion is condemned; granted. That Vatican II teaches anything more than a right from freedom from coercion, as the preconciliar magisterium often taught in regard to the jews living in Christendom; denied

That the few remaining confessional states ceased to exist after Vatican II as a result of imprudent practice; granted. That the documents of Vatican II itself teaches that such a thing should have occurred, and that the supported interpretation as found in the Relatio for Dignitatis Humanae and later Magisterial clarifications teach that such a thing should have occured; denied.

If it was truly impossible to reconcile, Monsignor Lefebvre and the other traditionalist bishops at Vatican II would have never signed the documents. Though, I know there is some dispute over whether Lefebvre signed it or not, so I digress.

I should also like to ask, given your interpretation on the condemnations of religious liberty in the 19th century, how do the plethora of Magisterial statements exhorting Catholics not to harass the Jews nor to prohibit them from public worship not contradict Pius IX as well? As far as I'm aware, one can't argue that they were given a civil right to be free from religious coercion in order to safeguard the common good. The jews were too small in number to effect the common good much either way. And that was in Confessional States, let alone the situation we find ourselves in today.

I will also concede, of course, that if it can be proven to me clearly and indisputably that Dignitatis Humanae directly contradicts the preconciliar Magisterium, and that as a result an ecumenical council of the Church taught grave and condemned errors, then I would have no choice but to admit that either the Church has defected or sedevacantism is correct. From my own study of the documents and preconciliar teachings on religious liberty, however, the issue appears to be a bit more nuanced than advocates of outright rupture make it seem.

[Michael Wilson]

St. Justin,
thank for your response; here is my thoughts:

That Vatican II teaches anything more than a right from freedom from coercion, as the preconciliar magisterium often taught in regard to the jews living in Christendom; denied

Vatican II D.H.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

There is no right to "religious freedom" to practice a false religion; the Church never taught any such "right", in fact it always condemned such as "freedom of perdition'' and "insanity".
D.H. #3

It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.

The state has the duty to prohibit the practice of false religions even the private practice of such; also here we see that D.H. Teaches that men have the right to practice their false religion in private and in public. There is no such "right".
Re. "Jews"; the Church never recognized that the Jews had any "right" to practice their religion; Pius VI in his letter to a French bishop specifically complained about giving full citizenship and the right to religious liberty to the Jews in the Frency Constitution. (I can't think of the name of the document at this moment).
As far as "nuance" goes, I don't know if you have read Cardinal Ottaviani's   "The Duties of the Catholic State in Regards to Religion" and Pius XII's  "Ci Riesce"; both of them speak explicitly of "toleration" not of "rights" in fact Pius XII is pretty explicit:

Now to give the right answer to the second question. Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorization, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity.......In other words, the question is raised whether in these circumstances "non impedire" or toleration is permissible, and whether, consequently, positive repression is not always a duty.
We have just adduced the authority of God. Could God, although it would be possible and easy for Him to repress error and moral deviation, in some cases choose the "non impedire" without . First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

One cannot therefore speak of any "right" to practice or profess a false religion, only a 'toleration'.
Re. "State power independent of the Church & Unam Sanctam"; I agree that the state is subject to the Church, but the Church recognized the power of non-Catholic states, such as St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans Ch. 13

[1] Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. [2] Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. [3] For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. [4] For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. [5] Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

St. Paul is speaking here of the Roman Empire, a pagan government, and yet he still spoke of their power as coming from God and being "God's ministers".
Msgr. Lefebvre and his sig. Yes, he always denied that he signed D.H. and G.E.S. And he also stated that he relied too much on the fact that Paul VI was going to correct any of the deficiencies of the documents.
Re. "Contradictions" lead to S.V. Ism; yes, I have arrived at such a conclusion a few years ago.

[Prayerful]

Since there is some dispute about what the Conciliar Decree "Dignitatis Humanae" actually teaches; there is always the post Conciliar magisterium that we can appeal to John Paul II in an official statement:
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1980/november/documents/hf_jp_ii_spe_19801114_atto-helsinki.html
MESSAGE OF JOHN PAUL II
ON THE VALUE AND CONTENT OF FREEDOM
OF CONSCIENCE AND OF RELIGION   

Friday, 14 November 1980

Church's Thinking on the Subject

3. The Catholic Church has synthesized her thinking on this subject in the Second Vatican Council's Declaration, Dignitatis humanae, promulgated on December 7, 1965, a document which places the Apostolic See under a special obligation.

This declaration had been preceded by Pope John XXIII's Encyclical, Pacem in terris, dated April 11, 1963, which solemnly emphasized the fact that everyone has "the right to be able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his conscience."

The same declaration of the Second Vatican Council was then taken up again in various documents of Pope Paul VI, in the 1974 Synod of Bishops' message, and more recently in the message to the United Nations Organization during the papal visit on October 2, 1979, which repeats it essentially: "In accordance with their dignity, all human beings, because they are persons, that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and, therefore, bearing a personal responsibility, are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and to direct their whole lives in accordance with its demands" (Dignitatis humanae, no. 2). "The practice of religion by its very nature consists primarily of those voluntary and free internal acts by which a human being directly sets his course towards God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind. But man's social nature itself requires that he give external expression to his internal acts of religion, that he communicate with others in religious matters and that he profess his religion in community" (Dignitatis humanae, no. 3).

Therefore, man having reason and free will and the obligation to seek religious truth, (true) therefore has the right to practice the religion that he believes is true, in private and in public; alone and with others.(false).

Yes, documents are not just their words but the life they took on afterwards. Perhaps Dignitatis Humanae could have been comprehended in an orthodox fashion, probably it could, but as you show, it became foundational for a Modernist praxis and heterodoxy.

[Michael Wilson]

Msgr. Lefebvre fought against the teaching of D.H. The rest of his life; and the Vatican pushed the teaching of the same to its logical conclusion of the Inter religious gatherings at Assisi and then Francis with the Abu Dhabi declaration; all justified by D.H.

[Justin Martyr]

Thank you for the courteous response!

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right... It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3) The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.

I do admit, the language here does give the impression that it directly contradicts the pre-conciliar magisterium. However, the pertinent question at stake is what is meant by religious liberty? Is it the condemned right to practice a false religion, or the mere right to toleration by non-Catholic temporal powers? The Second Vatican Council itself defined it as: "Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

A civil right of protection from being coerced by the civil power in a matter outside of its direct purview, is not the same thing as civil right (or let alone intrinsic human right) to practice a false religion. The council, it should be noted for those who read the whole document, is always careful to note that it is only speaking of merely human powers. It never says, for example, that men have a right to be free from coercion by the Church, or Catholic states guided by the Church, in religious matters.

The state has the duty to prohibit the practice of false religions even the private practice of such; also here we see that D.H. Teaches that men have the right to practice their false religion in private and in public. There is no such "right".

Then was Pope St. Gregory the Great in error when he said the Jews have a "lawful liberty" to celebrate their public religious rites: "TO PASCHASIUS, BISHOP OF NAPLES: Those who, with sincere intent, desire to lead people outside the Christian religion to the correct faith, ought to make the effort by means of what is pleasant, not with what is harsh, lest opposition drive afar the mind of men whom reasoning...could have attracted. Those who act otherwise...demonstrate that they are concerned with their own enterprises, rather than with those of God! Now, the Jews dwelling in Naples have registered a complaint with Us, asserting that certain people are attempting, in an unreasonable fashion, to restrain them from some of the solemnities connected with their own feast days, as it has been lawful for them to observe or celebrate these up to now, and for their forefathers from long ages past...For of what use is this, when...it avails nothing toward their faith and conversion?...One must act, therefore, in such a way that...they might desire to follow us rather than to fly from us...Rather let them enjoy their lawful liberty to observe and to celebrate their festivities, as they have enjoyed this up until now."

Re. "Jews"; the Church never recognized that the Jews had any "right" to practice their religion; Pius VI in his letter to a French bishop specifically complained about giving full citizenship and the right to religious liberty to the Jews in the Frency Constitution. (I can't think of the name of the document at this moment).

See my above quote from Pope St. Gregory for what I meant on the jews. There are other quotes from medieval popes that I'd have to track down and type out from denzinger to share here, but the above suffices in itself as an example. Granted, I don't see why Jews should have any place in Christendom period (I'm more in line with St. Chrysostom in my opinion on them), but the Church seems to have allowed them toleration and freedom from coercion in regard to the practice of their religion for a long time. Unless I'm misinterpreting what the Jew's celebrating "solemn feast days" and "religious rites" means.

As far as "nuance" goes, I don't know if you have read Cardinal Ottaviani's   "The Duties of the Catholic State in Regards to Religion" and Pius XII's  "Ci Riesce"; both of them speak explicitly of "toleration" not of "rights" in fact Pius XII is pretty explicit:

I've mainly read portions of the 19th century magisterial texts and prior magisterial texts, along with Dignitatis Humanae, but I will check these out to get a fuller picture incase I'm missing something. As far as I can tell though Vatican II in essence is simply speaking about a greatly expanded right of toleration, due to the fact that it is proper only to the Church to directly discriminate in spiritual affairs (the state can only do so indirectly, as an agent of the Church).

Now to give the right answer to the second question. Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorization, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity.......In other words, the question is raised whether in these circumstances "non impedire" or toleration is permissible, and whether, consequently, positive repression is not always a duty.
We have just adduced the authority of God. Could God, although it would be possible and easy for Him to repress error and moral deviation, in some cases choose the "non impedire" without . First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

I deny that Dignitatis Humanae "gives a positive command or positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good". I also deny that it commands us or the state in any way to be indifferent to the truth (since it it affirms the moral obligation for State's to be Catholic). It seems to me plainly to be teaching (albeit using somewhat imprudent terms like "religious liberty" which has a contrary definition in most other contexts) nothing more than the fact that purely secular states dont have any jurisdiction in spiritual affairs. Different issue entirely from the state giving positive commands or favor to error or indifferentism.

One cannot therefore speak of any "right" to practice or profess a false religion, only a 'toleration'.

Very gladly agreed and conceded.

Re. "State power independent of the Church & Unam Sanctam"; I agree that the state is subject to the Church, but the Church recognized the power of non-Catholic states, such as St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans Ch. 13

[1] Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. [2] Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. [3] For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. [4] For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. [5] Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

St. Paul is speaking here of the Roman Empire, a pagan government, and yet he still spoke of their power as coming from God and being "God's ministers".

I never denied that State's are God's ministers or that they have been given the sword to enforce what is good. However, if there is error in the spiritual sphere, only the spiritual power or the temporal power acting as an agent of the spiritual power can correct it. As, otherwise, a lower power would be judging the matters that are for a higher power to judge (namely, religious truth and the condemnation of error). Leo XIII also alludes to this in Immortale Dei when he talks of the state having a limited jurisdiction.

[Justin Martyr]

Msgr. Lefebvre fought against the teaching of D.H. The rest of his life; and the Vatican pushed the teaching of the same to its logical conclusion of the Inter religious gatherings at Assisi and then Francis with the Abu Dhabi declaration; all justified by D.H.

Naturally I view all of these (namely, the interpretations that lead the good Archbishop to fight against DH, and Abu Dhabi and the rest) as erroneous takes on Dignitatis Humanae that ignore the context through which we're to interpret the document itself (the Relatio, Post conciliar clarifications, and the preconciliar magisterium), and as erroneous actions that flow from such false interpretations.

Not that Abu Dhabi and the rest arn't big problems, but I limit my brainpower to my prayer life and actual magisterial documents lol. As long as the Magisterium doesn't directly contradict itself then I can spare myself fruitless worry about the state of the Church (which I am unable to control) and instead devote myself to my family and Christ (which I can control).

[Michael Wilson]

J.M.

I never denied that State's are God's ministers or that they have been given the sword to enforce what is good. However, if there is error in the spiritual sphere, only the spiritual power or the temporal power acting as an agent of the spiritual power can correct it. As, otherwise, a lower power would be judging the matters that are for a higher power to judge (namely, religious truth and the condemnation of error). Leo XIII also alludes to this in Immortale Dei when he talks of the state having a limited jurisdiction.

The state has the duty to repress evil doers including false religions; Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei condemns the indifference of the state towards religion or state atheism and the argument that the state is incompetent in religious matters.
re. St. Gregory does not speak of the "right" of the Jews, but of their freedom to hold worship services; the letter doesn't mention if they are in private or public; we can assume that it was the former.
re." "gives a positive command or positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good""
Vs. D.H.

But man's social nature itself requires that he give external expression to his internal acts of religion, that he communicate with others in religious matters and that he profess his religion in community" (Dignitatis humanae, no. 3).

If man's social nature "requires" that he give expression to his internal acts publicly, then he cannot be rightly refrained from doing so:
D.H.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion...

Therefore they have "the right"  not to be hindered from spreading their false religion publicly and even spreading it to the Catholic population aka. "Freedom of perdition" (Pius IX).
Even More:

it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.

To spread their errors to the whole of society; thus for example Protestants can introduce divorce and birth control into the society, even abortion in order to inspire its whole human activity.
D.H.

Therefore the care of the right to religious freedom devolves upon the whole citizenry, upon social groups, upon government, and upon the Church and other religious communities, in virtue of the duty of all toward the common welfare, and in the manner proper to each.
The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government.(5) Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means.

Insure the right to religious freedom is not only the essential duty of Government by just laws; but of all the citizens, and the Church.

[Michael Wilson]

From J.P. II's message on the "Freedom of Conscience"

—freedom to proclaim and communicate the teaching of the faith, whether by the spoken or the written word, inside as well as outside places of worship, and to make known their moral teaching on human activities and on the organization of society: this being in accordance with the commitment, included in the Helsinki Final Act, to facilitate the spreading of information, of culture, of exchange of knowledge and experiences in the field of education; which corresponds, moreover, in the religious field to the Church's mission of evangelization;
—freedom to use the media of social communication (press, radio, television) for the same purpose;

J.P. II message:

Person's Primary Right

5. As was said earlier, freedom of conscience and of religion, including the aforementioned elements, is a primary and inalienable right of the human person; what is more, insofar as it touches the innermost sphere of the spirit, one can even say that it upholds the justification, deeply rooted in each individual, of all other liberties. Of course, such freedom can only be exercised in a responsible way, that is, in accordance with ethical principles and by respecting equality and justice, which in turn can be strengthened, as mentioned before, through dialogue with those institutions whose nature is to serve religion.

Quanta Cura:

that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

[Justin Martyr]

While I don't have time for a full response currently (I'll respond more in depth hopefully later tonight); from what I can see JPII's speech on freedom of conscience is just that: a speech, and not an act of ordinary papal magisterium. Having read the full thing recently (I was unaware of its existence prior to your citations), I will concede that the speech is completely erroneous and teaches a version of religious liberty that is explicitly and exactly in contradiction to that of the preconciliar magisterium. However, since it isn't an act of the ordinary magisterium, but rather a speech of JPII as an individual, specifically aimed not at teaching the Church but at the various heads of states, I see no issue; I only care about magisterial teaching, as it is magisterial teaching which is infallibly safe.

That said, if it can be proven it is an act of ordinary papal magisterium, then I will read it once more with more care, in the event I missed any important clarifiers that would change the meaning as I initially interpreted it.

[Justin Martyr]

Upon further research, I have found a relatio from Vatican II (and the Magisterium has clearly stated multiple times in the past that the various relationes are one of the primary sources of interpretation for the council, and are authoritative in this regard) which explicitly condemns the modernist interpretation of DH in favor of a Leonine one:

"For the schema [Dignitatis Humanae] rests on the traditional doctrine between a double order of human life, that is sacred and profane, civil and religious. In modern times Leo XIII has wonderfully expounded and developed this doctrine, teaching more clearly than ever before that there are two societies, and so two legal orders, and two powers [potestates], each divinely constituted but in a different way, that is by natural law and by the positive law of Christ. As the nature of religious liberty rests on this distinction of orders, so the distinction provides a means to preserving it against the confusions which history has frequently produced."

This particular relatio can be found in the Vatican II Acta Synodalia, 4.1

Given the fact that my interpretation of what the council meant by "religious liberty" is the one the council fathers themselves explicitly clarified they meant and what they affirmed, and given the fact that Dignitatis Humanae is the lense through which all later magisterial documents on the subject are to be understood, I believe the burden of proof is now firmly on those who posit explicit and clear rupture on the part of Dignitatis Humanae to show that Leo XIII teaches anywhere that the state has an intrinsic (not borrowed) jurisdiction in religious matters, and can coerce in religious matters even as a mere human power (acting outside of subjection to the Church).

As for my part: Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

For those who want a more fleshed out and detailed view of how Dignitatis Humanae doesn't contradict preconciliar magisterium (which seemed to be Daniel's primary interest in creating this thread) and doesn't teach an intrinsic, natural right to hold error, I recommend reading this paper: https://www.academia.edu/32742609/Dignitatis_Humanae_continuity_after_Leo_XIII

Dr. Pink does a better (and more well cited job) than I on this point.

[Michael Wilson]

J.M.
Thanks for your responses.
On J.P. II being "Just a Speech"; so was Pius XII's discourse to Italian Midwives, in which he finally settled the issue of couples having recourse to the woman's infertile periods. Popes (per Dom Paul Nau, "The Ordinary Magisterium Theologically Considered); can use any means that they wish to clarify doctrinal issues, even make solemn "Ex Cathedra Statements"; J.P. II's declaration is only one in a series issued during the "International World Day of Peace" (and elsewhere) that advocates Religious Liberty and "Freedom of Conscience" not only citing D.H. But also the secular "Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man" and other similar documents that advocate religious liberty in the Liberal sense. 
Here is one from 1981:

The first and the most fundamental of these values is always man's relationship to God as expressed in his religious convictions. Religious freedom thus becomes the basis of the other freedoms. On the eve of the meeting in Madrid on European security and cooperation, I had the occasion to repeat what I have not ceased to state since the beginning of my ministry: "Freedom of conscience and religion... is... a primary and inalienable right of the person; far more, to the extent that it touches upon the most intimate sphere of the spirit, one can even say that it underlies the raison d'etre, intimately anchored in each person, of the other freedoms " (Religious freedom and the final Document of Helsinki, 5: cf . L'Osservatore Romano, 15 November 1980)...so that every human being can live, individually and collectively, in accordance with the demands of his or her conscience. Moreover, this freedom is called for in the major international pacts and other documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Conventions on the same subject, as also in the vast majority of national Constitutions. This is only right, since the State, as the recipient of a mandate given by its citizens, must not only recognize the basic freedoms of individuals but also protect and foster them.

If the supreme Pontiff of the Church does not know the true interpretation of the Conciliar Document who do we turn to? The answer is clear; it is the Pope to whom we must ultimately have recourse to in order to know what the Conciliar Document means.