Article 11
“God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion.”
A very interesting sentence. According to the council fathers, to be bound in conscience before God is not to be under compulsion. This may reveal something of what the fathers meant by freedom. An educated Catholic layperson might think God’s threat of hell exceeds any coercive force, no matter how terrible, a government could impose.[1] And yet such a threat does not impinge on human freedom, as the fathers apparently saw it.
Were the council fathers therefore thinking of psychological freedom, or free will, whenever they discussed freedom? Looking at this sentence, an educated Catholic layperson could think so. The fact that humans may accept or reject God in a sense vitiates Divine compulsion. One can go to heaven, if one chooses, or to hell, if one chooses.[2] The choice remains either way.
But the fathers treated governmental compulsion differently. They seemed to believe that coercion by human actors overbears the will, as opposed to that applied by God (setting aside the case of coercion applied by the Church). What could distinguish the two?
Let’s take cases. A man is punished by being thrown into prison, and a man is punished by being thrown into hell. The first man, it may be assumed, does not want to be there and would leave for the world he could. His will is overborne by the loss of civil freedom. The second man, in the view of an educated Catholic layperson, wants to be there.[3] He has chosen hell, and given his choice and the attendant deprivation of grace, he would not leave for heaven even if he could. His will is not overborne though it remains perverse.
Here is another complexity of Dignitatis humanae, a complexity which is once again not addressed by clear definitions. If the fathers were connecting civil freedom, which may be lost upon its abuse, with free will, which is not lost even in its abuse, a question is raised regarding the commensurability of the concepts. A review of the document will illustrate the point.
The fathers clearly wanted to address civil freedom; it is, after all, the subtitle of the document: “On the Right of the Person and of Communities
to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious.” The fathers furthermore recognized the distinction between civil freedom and psychological freedom. In article 2, for example, they asserted that people should “enjoy immunity from external coercion” in religious matters “as well as psychological freedom.”
The fathers, however, simultaneously connected these concepts. Consider some examples, also from Article 2. The fathers said “the 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.” Religious freedom is thus both distinct from civil rights and suitable to become a civil right. Similarly, the fathers state, “the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature,” this nature being “reason and free will.” So, however distinct the concepts may be, free will remains a template for civil rights in religious matters. The resultant freedom, which somehow bridges these concepts, is apparently what the fathers meant by “religious freedom.”
This hypothesis can perhaps be tested against the rest of Article 11. To what extent did the council fathers extend free will as understood by the Catholic Church to civil governance? Specifically, did the fathers rely on religious evidence as proof of their doctrine regarding the temporal sphere? As will be seen, their evidence is in fact exclusively religious.
“God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom.”
A religious statement regarding, apparently, free will or psychological freedom.
“This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom God manifested Himself and His ways with men.”
A religious statement.
“Christ is at once our Master and our Lord(11) and also meek and humble of heart.(12)”
A religious statement. The footnotes are to John 13:13 and Matt. 11:29.
“In attracting and inviting His disciples He used patience.(13)”
A religious statement. The footnote is to Matt. 11:28-30 and John 6:67-68.
“He wrought miracles to illuminate His teaching and to establish its truth, but His intention was to rouse faith in His hearers and to confirm them in faith, not to exert coercion upon them.(14)”
A religious statement with another apparent reference to free will. The footnote is to Matt. 9:28-29; Mark 9:23-24,[4] and to Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, “Ecclesiam Suam.” The cited pages of the encyclical contain the following sentences:
“No physical pressure was brought on anyone to accept the dialogue of salvation; far from it. It was an appeal of love. True, it imposed a serious obligation on those toward whom it was directed but it left them free to respond to it or to reject it. Christ adapted the number of His miracles and their demonstrative force to the dispositions and good will of His hearers so as to help them to consent freely to the revelation they were given and not to forfeit the reward for their consent. Hence although the truth we have to proclaim is certain and the salvation necessary, we dare not entertain any thoughts of external coercion. Instead we will use the legitimate means of human friendliness, interior persuasion, and ordinary conversation. We will offer the gift of salvation while respecting the personal and civic rights of the individual. [Internal footnotes omitted.]”[5]
The passages from Ecclesiam Suam could refer to civil rights, but Paul VI was evidently talking about the mission of the Church, not of the state. His abjuring of coercion therefore corresponds with the sentence of Dignitatis humanae addressed here, which refers to Christ. The issue is in these passages is free will or psychological freedom, not civil freedoms.
“He did indeed denounce the unbelief of some who listened to Him, but He left vengeance to God in expectation of the day of judgment.(15)”
A religious statement. The footnote is to Matt. 11:20-24, Rom. 12:19-20, and 2 Thess. 1:8. The sentence seems to omit, however, that it is precisely Jesus who will exact vengeance on the day of judgment, a fact mentioned in the preceding verse of 2 Thessalonians and other Bible verses besides.[6] Furthermore, an educated Catholic layperson would know the apparently omitted teaching.[7]
“When He sent His Apostles into the world, He said to them: ‘He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned’ (Mark 16:16).”
A religious statement.
“But He Himself, noting that the cockle had been sown amid the wheat, gave orders that both should be allowed to grow until the harvest time, which will come at the end of the world.(16)”
A religious statement. The footnote is to Matt. 13:30 and 40-44.
“He refused to be a political messiah, ruling by force:(17) He preferred to call Himself the Son of Man, who came ‘to serve and to give his life as a ransom for the many’ (Mark 10:45).”
A religious statement. The footnote is to Matt. 4:8-10 and Jn. 6:15.
“He showed Himself the perfect servant of God,(18) who ‘does not break the bruised reed nor extinguish the smoking flax’ (Matt. 12:20).”
A religious statement. The footnote is to Is. 42:1-4.
“He acknowledged the power of government and its rights, when He commanded that tribute be given to Caesar: but He gave clear warning that the higher rights of God are to be kept inviolate: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).”
A religious statement about government and the distinction of religion from it.
“In the end, when He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion.”
A religious statement.
“For He bore witness to the truth,(19) but He refused to impose the truth by force on those who spoke against it.”
A religious statement. Although there is mention of Jesus’ refusal to “impose the truth by force,” the context is his teaching mission, not a claim to civil government, which the fathers noted in a prior sentence was not Jesus’ teaching, i.e., he “refused to be a political messiah.” The footnote is to Jn. 18:37.
“Not by force of blows does His rule assert its claims.(20)”
A religious statement akin to that prior. Here the council fathers mention Jesus’ “rule,” but again they do so after observing that Jesus was not a political messiah. The footnote supports this reading. It cites Matt. 26:51-53, where Jesus forbade violence in his defense at Gethsemane. It also cites Jn. 18:36, where Jesus explains the lack of a violent defense to Pilate by saying: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
“It is established by witnessing to the truth and by hearing the truth, and it extends its dominion by the love whereby Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws all men to Himself.(21)”
A religious statement. The footnote is to Jn. 12:32.
“Taught by the word and example of Christ, the Apostles followed the same way.”
A religious statement.
“From the very origins of the Church the disciples of Christ strove to convert men to faith in Christ as the Lord; not, however, by the use of coercion or of devices unworthy of the Gospel, but by the power, above all, of the word of God.(22)”
A religious statement, any political overtones being excluded for the reasons just set out regarding Jesus’ own ministry. The footnote is to 1 Cor. 2: 3-5 and 1 Thess. 2:3-5.
“Steadfastly they proclaimed to all the plan of God our Savior, ‘who wills that all men should be saved and come to the acknowledgment of the truth’ (1 Tim. 2:4).”
A religious statement.
“At the same time, however, they showed respect for those of weaker stuff, even though they were in error, and thus they made it plain that ‘each one of us is to render to God an account of himself” (Romans 14:12),(23) and for that reason is bound to obey his conscience.”
A religious statement. The footnote is to Rom. 14:1-23 and 1 Cor. 8:9-13, 10:23-33.
“Like Christ Himself, the Apostles were unceasingly bent upon bearing witness to the truth of God, and they showed the fullest measure of boldness in ‘speaking the word with confidence’ (Acts 4:31) (24) before the people and their rulers.”
A religious statement. The footnote is to Eph. 6:19-20.
“With a firm faith they held that the Gospel is indeed the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.(25)”
A religious statement. The footnote is to Rom. 1:16.
“Therefore they rejected all “carnal weapons:(26) they followed the example of the gentleness and respectfulness of Christ and they preached the word of God in the full confidence that there was resident in this word itself a divine power able to destroy all the forces arrayed against God(27) and bring men to faith in Christ and to His service.(28)”
A religious statement. The opening clause features evident typographical errors—an unmatched quotation mark and a purposeless colon. Judging from the Latin version, the colon should be a second question mark.[8] The opening clause is also unusual in that the direct quote is supported by a footnote, not by an interlinear citation as elsewhere. Footnote 26 is to 2 Cor. 10:4 and 1 Thess. 5:8-9, the former of which contains the quoted language. The remaining footnotes are to Eph. 6:11-17 and 2 Cor. 10:3-5.
“As the Master, so too the Apostles recognized legitimate civil authority.”
A religious statement. The reference to “civil authority” remains religious, not political, for the reasons set out above.
“’For there is no power except from God’, the Apostle teaches, and thereafter commands: ‘Let everyone be subject to higher authorities…. He who resists authority resists God’s ordinance’ (Romans 13:1-5).(29)”
A religious statement, but one clearly about civil governance. The footnote to 1 Pet. 2:13-17 essentially parallels the teaching from Romans. So, government gets its power from God, but should that power be confused with power exercised in the religious sphere by the Church? An educated Catholic layperson would hesitate to say so.[9]
“At the same time, however, they did not hesitate to speak out against governing powers which set themselves in opposition to the holy will of God: ‘It is necessary to obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5:29).(30)”
A religious statement, the reference to “governing powers” notwithstanding. An educated Catholic layperson would easily understand this teaching.[10] The footnote is to Acts 4: 19-20.
“This is the way along which the martyrs and other faithful have walked through all ages and over all the earth.”
A religious statement.
Conclusion to Article 11
The following observation ended the analysis of Article 3: “It is as though the council fathers wanted to be liberal, but remained Catholic, and so confused everybody.” One could say for this and the preceding article: It is as though the council fathers wanted to be laypersons, but remained bishops, and so confused everybody. They clearly esteemed civil freedom, but their template for such freedom remained free will, i.e., what a pastor would consider when judging a religious issue.
It is of course understood that a civil freedom could be based on human nature, including free will, and thus have the status of a natural right. The long-standing Catholic prohibition of forced conversion is an example. But unless the fathers meant that humans have a natural right to error in religious belief and practice, a position they did not clearly articulate, it is unclear how psychological freedom with respect to religion translates into civil freedom with respect to religion. The connection, as was asserted in the conclusion to the last article, seems more emotive than logical.
[1] “What is the particular judgment? It is the judgment of immediate retribution which each one after death will receive from God in his immortal soul in accord with his faith and his works. This retribution consists in entrance into the happiness of heaven, immediately or after an appropriate purification, or entry into the eternal damnation of hell.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Church, ¶ 208, retrieved on February 29, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[2] “Hell consists in the eternal damnation of those who die in mortal sin through their own free choice.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 212, retrieved on February 29, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[3] “God, while desiring ‘all to come to repentance’ (2 Peter 3:9), nevertheless has created the human person to be free and responsible; and he respects our decisions. Therefore, it is the human person who freely excludes himself from communion with God if at the moment of death he persists in mortal sin and refuses the merciful love of God.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 213, retrieved on February 29, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[4] There is also a fragmentary citation, present in the Latin as well, to “6:5-6.”
[5] Para. 75, retrieved on March 1, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/ encyclicals/ documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html; Acta Apostolica Sedes 56 (1964), pp. 642-643, retrieved on March 1, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-56-1964-ocr.pdf.
[6] See Matt. 25:31-46 and Jn. 5:22-23.
[7] See Apostle’s Creed (“from thence He will come to judge the living and the dead”); also, “Christ will judge with the power he has gained as the Redeemer of the world who came to bring salvation to all. The secrets of hearts will be brought to light as well as the conduct of each one toward God and toward his neighbor. Everyone, according to how he has lived, will either be filled with life or damned for eternity.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 135, retrieved on March 1, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ compendium ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[8] “Omnibus ergo spretis “armis carnalibus” (27).” Retrieved on March 1, 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 one more footnote.
[9] “The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 2245, retrieved on March 1, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7W.HTM.
[10] “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 2242, retrieved on March 1, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/ __P7W.HTM