Article 9
“The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are [sic.] fully known to human reason through centuries of experience.”
The translation of the following clause is apparently flawed: “whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience.” There should be only one predicate, of course. It is also unclear whether the relative adjective “whose” modifies the nouns “dignity” or “person” from the prior clause. The entire sentence in Latin runs: “Quae de iure hominis ad libertatem religiosam declarat haec Vaticana Synodus, fundamentum habent in dignitate personae, cuius exigentiae rationi humanae plenius innotuerunt per saeculorum experientiam.”[1] Reducing to one the predicate in the offending clause, and keeping the personal character of the relative adjective, the result is: “whose exigencies have come to be fully known to human reason through centuries of experience.”[2]
The sentence is a stronger assertion than the document’s first: “A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man.” The first sentence left the agent unclear, referring to a “sense”; it did not define how the sense operated, saying only that it was “impressing itself”; and it limited the temporal framework to the recent past, i.e., “contemporary man.” Now, the council fathers seemingly claim: 1) reason is the cause of enlightenment regarding the human person, 2) experience is the grist for such reason, and 3) long experience, extending even into the present, leads to such enlightenment. This is an apparently progressive view of human history.
The word “foundation” is also strong. In the document’s first sentence, the “sense” of “contemporary man” regarding human dignity functioned as an opening for discussion. Here, the council fathers say human dignity is the “foundation” of their teaching. The upshot appears to be that experience allows the Church to teach things unknown before.
An educated Catholic layperson would be confused by the suggestion. The Church is presumed to teach the revelation of God, which has been closed since the death of the last Apostle.[3] In what sense, it must be asked, are the council fathers relying on recent insights regarding the human person? The following sentences, if read closely, may give some indication.
“What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously.”
After stating the “foundation” of their teaching is an evolving insight into human dignity, the council fathers say their “doctrine of freedom” has “roots in divine revelation.” This is the first time the fathers have directly called their teaching a “doctrine.” The next sentences indicate what they mean by “roots.”
“Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious.”
A significant admission. Taken together with the prior sentences, it shows that the council fathers’ teaching on religious freedom is a restatement of the evolving understanding of contemporary man. It is not, they say, explicitly found in revelation. But they still maintain that it is rooted in revelation, with the mechanism hinted at in the next sentence.
“It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions.”
This is an anticipatory rejoinder. Yes, the council fathers say, we do not find religious freedom in revelation, but the dignity of the human person is found in revelation, and since our understanding of religious freedom is based on human dignity, by a sort of transitive property our teaching on religious freedom is also based on revelation. Just as if a=b, and b=c, then a=c, so if religious freedom=human dignity, and human dignity=revelation, then religious freedom=revelation. Of course, there is some difficulty with the equations. More on that later.
“It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow.”
An amplification of the prior sentence. Revelation testifies to human dignity via the “respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God.” In an echo of articles 1 and 2, the fathers connect the psychological freedom necessary for a salvific response to grace with the political freedom at issue here. An educated Catholic layperson could think they do little to establish the connection, however.
The connection is instead asserted in a rather exultant tone. One could even think the present passages the most highly colored of the document. The council fathers are admitting their doctrine is affirmed not by revelation, but by the insights of human reason taken together with their own belief that such insights correspond to revelation. The fathers are not explaining the data of revelation, in other words, but are augmenting revelation with the allegedly corresponding data of human reason. A dramatic claim.
“Thus further light is cast upon the general principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious freedom is based.”
The council fathers again say they are teaching a doctrine, adding that it is based on “general principles.” Since the general principles are not affirmed by revelation, but by the insights of contemporary man, the principles must in essence be a political theory. People over long experience have developed a new political theory, the fathers seem to say, and the new political theory, although not found in revelation, is rooted in revelation because the political theory is based on human dignity, which is found in revelation.
However, an educated Catholic layperson could still wonder whether the new political theory is true. Political theory is more the task of the laity than the clergy,[4] especially when the clergy admit a theory is not affirmed by revelation. And of course, if the political theory is not true, then the transitive property will not work: If religious freedom ≠ human dignity, and human dignity = revelation, then nothing follows.
“In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.”
The concluding sentence of the article corresponds to the fundamental problem with the article’s logic. To the degree the council fathers are teaching revelation, including valid inferences from revelation, the transitive property should work both ways. In other words, if religious freedom=human dignity, and human dignity=revelation, then religious freedom=revelation; and if religious freedom=revelation, and revelation=human dignity, then religious freedom=human dignity. If the transitive property does not work both ways, the equations do not hold. There is a problem at the premise level.
And indeed, the council fathers have already told us the problem. They admit that religious freedom≠revelation. The causal links therefore depend on something other than revelation. If one accepts that religious freedom is linked to human dignity on a basis distinct from revelation, then it may be linked to revelation through human dignity. But the links cannot be established by beginning with revelation, because revelation does not affirm religious freedom. Revelation does affirm human dignity, but the final link from religious freedom to human dignity still remains. Since revelation as a source of that link is already ruled out, the inference must be based on something else. In this document, the council fathers’ have relied on the progressive insights of human reason. Religious freedom therefore remains a political theory, not a dogmatic fact.
Hence the present sentence. The fathers say religious freedom is “consonant” with Christian freedom, not that it is Christian freedom, nor an essential element of Christian freedom. Mere consonance does not transfer the truth of the latter to the former. There may be aspects of each not found in the other, and they may function on distinct planes.
But all of that is obscured by the council fathers’ enthusiasm for religious liberty. The discussion is perhaps most confusing because an educated Catholic layperson would not expect the fathers to choose among political theories. Such is not the mission of the Church,[5] something the fathers effectively admit when they say their preferred theory is not affirmed by revelation “in so many words.”
Conclusion to article 9
Dignitatis humanae must ultimately address the nature of the state. The council fathers claim to teach doctrine governing the operation of the state as it respects religious belief and practice. They supposedly lay down markers beyond which the state may not go and give instructions for the state to follow.
Yet they tell the world in article 9 that their doctrine is not affirmed by the revelation of God. The maneuver is confusing. The council fathers apparently believe religious freedom promotes human dignity, but what if they are wrong? The many issues raised so far suggest problems with the conclusion. And at the present remove from the Council, can the educated Catholic laity accept that religious freedom has indeed led to greater human dignity? The evidence is scarce, making the enthusiasm of the fathers seem naive. Alternatively, one could wonder at their freedom in the matter. The confusion produced by the document, which does not illuminate but obscures Church teaching, would be welcomed by many powers of the world.
[1] Retrieved on December 12, 2020, from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_lt.html.
[2] Cf. the French translation, “Ce que ce Concile du Vatican déclare sur le droit de l’homme à la liberté religieuse a pour fondement la dignité de la personne, dont, au cours des temps, l’expérience a manifesté toujours plus pleinement les exigences à la raison humaine.” Retrieved on December 12, 2020, from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_fr.html; and the German translation, “Was das Vatikanische Konzil über das Recht des Menschen auf religiöse Freiheit erklärt, hat seine Grundlage in der Würde der Person, deren Forderungen die menschliche Vernunft durch die Erfahrung der Jahrhunderte vollständiger erkannt hat.” Retrieved on December 12, 2020, from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_ge.html.
[3] “Tradition and Sacred Scripture are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ. They flow out of the same divine well-spring and together make up one sacred deposit of faith from which the Church derives her certainty about revelation.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶14, retrieved on December 12, 2020, from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[4] “By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God’s will…. It pertains to them in a special way so to illuminate and order all temporal things with which they are closely associated that these may always be effected and grow according to Christ and maybe to the glory of the Creator and Redeemer. The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church [internal quotation marks and citations omitted.]” The Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶¶ 898-899, retrieved on February 9, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM.
[5] “The mission of Christ and of the Spirit became the mission of the Church which is sent to proclaim and spread the mystery of the communion of the Holy Trinity.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 144, retrieved on February 9, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.