Bad internet = 3 posts, my apologies.
To give a clear example of what I'm speaking of in regards to recent encyclicals. From Benedict XVI www.vatican.va
"29. There is another aspect of modern life that is very closely connected to development: the denial of the right to religious freedom"
From the syllabus of errors Pius IX. www.papalencyclicals.net
" 77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."
Benedict XVI does not give clarification as to his interpretation of religious freedom in the prior or post paragraph to the one that the sentence is used in. Does he mean it according to what the world believes is religious freedom which is clearly error as pronounced by Pius IX? or does he mean it in a way that is in conformity with Church teachings?
This is the type of ambiguity or even error being strewn about in our age and needs to be clarified, or better yet go back to how the Church always taught which was to always clarify and give more clarity to things, never to be ambiguous.
Gee, if I pick and choose isolated sayings of Christ in the New Testament, I can prove just about anything I want to prove. That is why the Church tells us we must look in the bible in total.
So here you are, nit picking what to you are ambiguous statements and presenting them as some kind of proof that Benedict is committing the sin of, I presume, modernism.
Yet taken in context of the Chuirch's teaching, there is no ambiguity.
The Church proposes it does not impose. But in order for it to propose its God given message, freedom of religion honored by the temporal authorities must be present. And that means freedom of religion to everyone, no matter what their belief is.
Saying that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State is the recognition of reality. The Muslims believe their religion should be the religion of the State. Would you want to live in that State?
Why would you even begin to think that somehow that statement is erroneous? He is simply saying the State has no place dictating what religion people should follow whether The Catholic Faith or any other.
The ambiguity exists solely in your mind, not in what the Church teaches and Benedict proclaims.
Where do you get these ideas?