Article 4
“The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community.”
The council fathers have focused on the individual from the start of their document, and even here, when speaking of community, things flow from the individual. The fathers do not say that communities hold immunity from coercion in matters religious, but that the immunity held by individuals remains theirs while in community. A community takes its immunity from the individuals who make it up, in other words, not the individuals from the community of which they are part.
“Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature of both man and of religion itself.”
A statement that communities cannot be deprived of the immunity held by individuals by keeping individuals apart from community. The mention of “religion itself,” however, is in tension with both this and the prior sentence—it seems to indicate religion is inherently social. If so, the continued focus on the individual is confusing. “[M]an” is also said to be “social,” of course, but the link between the individual and the community remains unexplored, and again “religion” (abstract noun) is not defined.
The sentence similarly does not define “[r]eligious communities.” Given the emphasis in the prior sentence on the individual as the source of community rights, and considering the uncertainty regarding the meaning of “religious,” “religious communities” may or may not be distinct from the Catholic Church. An educated Catholic layperson could read “religious communities” to mean subsets of the Catholic Church,[1] once again showing the document can be read to apply exclusively to Catholics.
“Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religions communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.”
A list of what “religious communities” do: they govern themselves, give “public worship” to the “Supreme Being” (which for an educated Catholic layperson means God[2]), and generally help each other live a religious life. This is the only appearance of the phrase “public worship” in the document. While an educated Catholic layperson could read “public worship” to mean the rites of other religions, the most natural meaning to such a person would be the rites of the Catholic Church.[3] The council fathers did not make their meaning clear if they had other rites in mind.
“Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferal of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.”
The council fathers apply their teaching to religious communities which have an identifiable corps of ministers who are selected, trained, appointed, and transferred, which work with “religious authorities and communities abroad,” and which own buildings together with other kinds of wealth coextensive with their international reach. An educated Catholic layperson would have difficulty identifying a religion which meets this description aside from his or her own.[4] Would the Anglican Communion qualify, for example? The various aspects of the Muslim world? Missouri Synod Lutherans?
Of course, parts of the description would apply to other faiths. And all of it might if “religious authorities” were construed broadly to include, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury, various Imams around the world, and whatever assembly or other structures governs the various Protestant congregations. Does the description perhaps also match the Mormons? These questions appear unanswerable.
“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.”
The council fathers continue to apply to religious communities the rights already announced for individuals.
“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 that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people.”
This sentence breaks a pattern. It does not mention religious communities but instead applies to “everyone.” It also does not speak of a freedom or right, but of responsibility. Suddenly, without establishing why, duty intrudes.
The language nevertheless remains broad and general. The council fathers do place “coercion” and “persuasion” in the disjunctive, perhaps suggesting they use coercion to mean actual force. Little more can be said, however, because the line between the “public teaching and witness” of the prior sentence and the “hint of coercion or a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy” in this will remain in the eye of the beholder.
“Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one’s right and a violation of the right of others.”
As just said, people will disagree over where rights end and abuse or violations begin. An educated Catholic lay person would like some guidance on the point, but the council fathers do not provide it.
“In addition, 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 human activity.”
Religious communities are free to affect all of society.
“Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation for 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.”
“[T]heir own religious sense” is an unusual phrase. The apparent meaning is religious subjectivity. What about religious objectivity?
Reading the document as a whole, the council fathers teach the existence of objective religious truth. So, what is a person’s “own religious sense”? An educated Catholic layperson would have difficulty reading this to mean something distinct from the objective truth.[5] One’s “own religious sense,” if “religious” is to be consistent with true faith, would exclude idolatry, for example.[6] If the council fathers meant to dignify idolatry as a genuine “religious sense,” it is hard to understand how they could use the same adjective (and the related nouns) without distinction to mean Catholicism.
Conclusion to article 4.
The council fathers were presumably capable of saying what they meant. If they meant that all religions (plural concrete noun) enjoy freedom, they could have begun article 4 as follows, with added language in italics:
“The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious, which is the endowment of persons as individuals no matter their belief, is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities, such as churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, and other assemblies of the world religions, are a requirement of the social nature of man and of religion itself.”
These additions would make the adjective “religious” consistent with “religions” as a plural concrete noun, i.e., all religions. “Religious,” and “religion” as an abstract noun, would then refer to a genus of which there are many species. That is certainly the tone of the document.
If, instead, the council fathers meant that only one religion (singular concrete noun) enjoys freedom, they could have written as follows, with added language again in italics:
“The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious, which is the endowment of persons as individual[] Catholics, is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities of the Catholic Church are a requirement of the social nature of man and of religion itself.”
These additions would equate the adjective “religious” with a use of “religion” as a singular concrete noun meaning Catholicism. Article 1 is the most plausible example of such use. “Religious” and “religion” as an abstract noun would then mean Catholicism, the sui generis religion.
Of course, the council fathers said neither. An educated Catholic layperson is left with something in between, which is more a muddle than an ambiguity. Ambiguities arise when multiple meanings are possible. Here, even a faithful and open-hearted reading of the document shows little meaning beyond what a Catholic layperson may choose to impose.
[1] “In Christian usage, the word ‘church’ designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community or the whole universal community of believers. These three meanings are inseparable. ‘The Church’ is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. [Internal footnotes omitted.]” Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶752, retrieved on September 15, 2020, from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P27.HTM#58.
[2] “‘The supreme being must be unique, without equal. . . If God is not one, he is not God’ [Internal footnote omitted.]” Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶228, retrieved on September 15, 2020, from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P16.HTM.
[3] “The public worship which is due to God is offered by the Mystical Body of Christ, that is, by its head and by its members.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶218, retrieved on September 15, 2020, from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[4] “The one Church of Christ, as a society constituted and organized in the world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. Only through this Church can one obtain the fullness of the means of salvation since the Lord has entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone whose head is Peter.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶162, retrieved on September 16, 2020, from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[5] “Besides sacramental liturgy and sacramentals, catechesis must take into account the forms of piety and popular devotions among the faithful. the religious sense of the Christian people has always found expression in various forms of piety surrounding the Church’s sacramental life, such as the veneration of relics, visits to sanctuaries, pilgrimages, processions, the stations of the cross, religious dances, the rosary, medals, etc. [Internal footnote omitted.]” Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 1674 retrieved on September 17, 2020, from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P58.HTM#JS.
[6] “Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. the commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God.’ [Internal footnote omitted.]” Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 2114, retrieved on September 17, 2020, from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P7E.HTM#9K.