Article 10
“It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man’s response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8)”
The article cites footnote 8 before footnote 7 due to the arrangement of ideas. In the Latin version, both this and the next sentence are combined into one, with the expected order of footnotes.[1]
The council fathers speak of “doctrine” in this sentence, as they did in the last article, but the terms are equivocal. The “Catholic doctrine” mentioned here is found in revelation—it is dogma, in other words. An educated Catholic layperson would understand the sentence.[2]
The footnote first cites canon 1351, evidently of the 1917 code,[3] which states: “No one unwilling is to be coerced into embracing the Catholic faith.” The footnote then cites an allocution of Pope Pius XII and his encyclical Mystici Corporis. The cited page of the encyclical contains the following teaching:
“Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe. Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the faith without which it is impossible to please God is an entirely free submission of intellect and will [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].”[4]
Once again, all of this would be easily understood by an educated Catholic layperson.
“This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7)”
Footnote 7 gives a string citation to Church fathers, councils, and popes supporting the article’s first sentence. It is unnecessary to examine the footnote because it is established Catholic belief. The numerous citations demonstrate the common nature of the teaching.
“The act of faith is of its very nature a free act.”
A repetition of the point already made.
“Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God’s adopted son,(9) cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father,(10) he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith.”
Ditto. The footnotes are to Eph. 1:5 and John 6:44.
“It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded.”
The analysis from the prior article could be repeated here. Are the council fathers drawing a logical inference from the revealed dogma just discussed, or are they comparing a principle derived apart from revelation with that source of truth? They speak here about something “completely in accord” with faith, just as in the prior article they spoke of something “entirely consonant” with revelation. They seemingly are not saying faith requires that “in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded,” but that it is consistent with faith to act so—a different sort of claim.
Moreover, what do they mean by “on the part of men”? Does this include the Church? Can the Church exercise coercion in matters religious, or at least authorize the government to do so? The issue is unclear.
For example, is not excommunication coercive, and does not the Church use that remedy? To exclude “every manner of coercion” is thus confusing. It is hard to believe the council fathers meant to exclude all coercion in religious matters, even if they wished their teaching to be applied only to the government. The state would be decapitated in such a case, as discussed in several places above. An educated Catholic layperson would expect the fathers to understand this fact.[5]
“In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life.”
Potentially the most utopian sentence in the document. If the council fathers meant that freedom for truth and error alike produces freedom for truth, they were seemingly ignoring original sin. An educated Catholic layperson would not expect this.[6] If they meant freedom for truth but not necessarily for error, then an educated Catholic layperson would understand the sentence but not its consistency with others in the document. The interpretation comes down, once again, to what the fathers meant by “religion” and its adjectival form “religious,” which of course are undefined.
Conclusion to article 10
The function of this article is unclear. The opening sentences are strongly dogmatic, and the council father then claim their teaching on religious freedom fits the dogma. Since the link between the two is absent, however, the inference seems nearly emotive.
[1] “Caput est ex praecipuis doctrinae catholicae, in verbo Dei contentum et a Patribus constanter praedicatum (8), hominem debere Deo voluntarie respondere credendo; invitum proinde neminem esse cogendum ad amplectendam fidem (9).” Retrieved on February 9, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive /hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_lt.html. Recall that the Latin version features an additional footnote.
[2]“Faith is a personal act insofar as it is the free response of the human personto God who reveals himself.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 30, retrieved on February 9, 2024, from https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[3]Retrieved on February 9, 2024, from: https://archive.org/stream/the-1917-or-pio-benedictine-code-canon-law-pope-st-pius-x/The%201917%20or%20Pio-Benedictine%20Code%20canon%20law%20%20 Pope%20St%20Pius%20X%20_djvu.txt. The link on the Vatican website from this footnote takes one to the 1983 code.
[4] Acta Apostolica Sedes (1943), p. 243, retrieved February 9, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ aas/documents/ AAS-35-1943-ocr.pdf; Mystici Corporis, ¶ 104, retrieved February 9, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-35-1943-ocr.pdf.
[5] “To ensure the common good, the government of each country has the specific duty to harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice. The proper reconciling of the particular goods of groups and those of individuals is, in fact, one of the most delicate tasks of public authority. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in the democratic State, where decisions are usually made by the majority of representatives elected by the people, those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority. [Internal footnote omitted; emphasis in original.]” Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ¶ 169, retrieved February 29, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/ justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html.
[6] “The Church baptizes infants because they are born with original sin. They need to be freed from the power of the Evil One and brought into that realm of freedom which belongs to the children of God.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 253, retrieved on February 29, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/ archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html