Article 15
“The fact is that men of the present day want to be able freely to profess their religion in private and in public.”
This is nearly a tautology. People naturally want freely to profess their religion, a fact true in any age. Without a definition of “religion,” however, the document never addresses what such freedom might mean for Catholics.
“Indeed, religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in international documents.(38)”
The assertion is remarkable. First, the council fathers do not discuss any political or legal documents. Are the terms used in Dignitatis humanae, including “religious freedom,” of the same meaning as those used in politics and law? If so, which politics and law? To simply assert that “religious freedom” is found elsewhere, without attempting to compare and contrast the theological use with the political and legal use, is a source of confusion.
Second, the council fathers imply that the governments of the world beat the Catholic Church to the teaching of a council document. If so, why? Is religious freedom a theological concept, or is it a political and legal concept? If theological, why was it missed for so long, only to be discovered by governments? If political and legal, how can the fathers be so sure of its validity? Why indeed should the laity take the fathers’ word on politics and law? An educated Catholic layperson would know the Church’s teaching on the relative responsibilities of clergy and laity.[1]
The footnote, the last of the document, is again to Pacem in Terris.[2] The pages cited are an apparent reference to the following:
“The United Nations Organization (U.N.) was established, as is well known, on June 26, 1945. To it were subsequently added lesser organizations consisting of members nominated by the public authority of the various nations and entrusted with highly important international functions in the economics, social, cultural, educational and health fields. The United Nations Organization has the special aim of maintaining and strengthening peace between nations, and of encouraging and assisting friendly relations between them, based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and extensive cooperation in every field of human endeavor.
A clear proof of the farsightedness of this organization is provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The preamble of this declaration affirms that the genuine recognition and complete observance of all the rights and freedoms outlined in the declaration is a goal to be sought by all peoples and all nations.
We are, of course, aware that some of the points in the declaration did not meet with unqualified approval in some quarters; and there was justification for this. Nevertheless, We think the document should be considered a step in the right direction, an approach toward the establishment of a juridical and political ordering of the world community. It is a solemn recognition of the personal dignity of every human being; an assertion of everyone’s right to be free to seek out the truth, to follow moral principles, discharge the duties imposed by justice, and lead a fully human life. It also recognized other rights connected with these.
It is therefore Our earnest wish that the United Nations Organization may be able progressively to adapt its structure and methods of operation to the magnitude and nobility of its tasks. May the day be not long delayed when every human being can find in this organization an effective safeguard of his personal rights; those rights, that is, which derive directly from his dignity as a human person, and which are therefore universal, inviolable and inalienable. This is all the more desirable in that men today are taking an ever more active part in the public life of their own nations, and in doing so they are showing an increased interest in the affairs of all peoples. They are becoming more and more conscious of being living members of the universal family of mankind.”[3]
“[E]every human being can find in this organization an effective safeguard of his personal rights.” “They are becoming more and more conscious of being living members of the universal family of mankind.” These sound like aspirations to global government, but the council fathers never address how individual liberties could survive such centralization. An educated Catholic layperson would be confused by the lack of reference to subsidiarity.[4]
“The further fact is that forms of government still exist under which, even though freedom of religious worship receives constitutional recognition, the powers of government are engaged in the effort to deter citizens from the profession of religion and to make life very difficult and dangerous for religious communities.”
A sentence which, an educated Catholic layperson would know, probably referred to Communist governments. But the lack of a definition for “religion” leaves uncertainty about its application. If the “profession of religion” included, for example, human sacrifice, an educated Catholic layperson would think that the powers of government should be engaged in an effort to deter citizens from such actions.[5] The meaning of “religion” must, it appears, be constrained in some fashion.
But then how broad is it? Does it include major world religions, for example? Assume a Hindu or Muslim country were engaged in an effort to deter citizens from the profession of Catholicism. If the same countries were promoting Hinduism or Islam, would they be engaged in the effort to deter citizens from the profession of religion? Not generically, assuming Hinduism and Islam were included under the rubric of “religion.” The countries would be engaged in the effort to deter citizens from the profession of one religion in preference for another.
If that distinction seems too fine, then the first situation recurs. Either everything qualifies for protection as a religion, or governments must decide. If governments must decide, then by failing to define what they meant by “religion” or “religious,” the council fathers failed to provide guidance on the question. And yet this is the very question presumably addressed in the document. The situation is inherently confusing.
“This council greets with joy the first of these two facts as among the signs of the times.”
It is unclear why the “signs of the times” should be an object of joy. The council fathers seem to mean that since religious freedom is a good thing, it is an occasion of joy to notice it in present times. But the fathers have so frequently relied upon the present (“contemporary man,” etc.) to show religious freedom is a good thing, that the logic seems circular. It is a good thing because it is present, because the present is a good thing.
Stated another way, the style of thinking is again progressive. This is very confusing because progressivism will itself progress, and once it has done so, it will be a different thing. So what is the teleology here? True progressives envision a perfect future world, but the council fathers did not do that. They were Catholic, after all. And yet without a perfect future world, how can progressivism work? The fathers never say.
“With sorrow, however, it denounces the other fact, as only to be deplored.”
The closest the council fathers came to an anathema. But it is an undefined anathema, both here and in the sentence referenced.
“The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family.”
The emphasis on the “present condition of the human family” suggests the necessity of religious freedom lies in the practical, not theoretical, order. Some practical considerations follow.
“All nations are coming into even closer unity.”
Granting the assertion for the sake of discussion, the upshot is unclear.
“Men of different cultures and religions are being brought together in closer relationships.”
A possible implication of the prior sentence. The issue raised by “closer relationships” is not identified, however. An educated Catholic layperson might infer that closer relationships could lead to social friction, and that the council fathers sought to forestall or minimize conflict by emphasizing religious freedom.[6] But since true peace comes from Christ,[7] an educated Catholic layperson would have to consider the effect of religious freedom on evangelization.
Here at the end of the document, an amazing lacuna is thus apparent. The council fathers have never discussed the impact of religious freedom on evangelization. In article 1, they did note the Great Commission and the attendant “duty” to spread Catholicism. In article 4, they warned against “coercion” and “dishonorable or unworthy” practices when “spreading religious faith.” And, in article 14, the fathers urged Catholics to spread the faith, “even to the shedding of their blood.”
But how will religious freedom affect this task? The tone of article 15, like the rest of the document, shows the council fathers were optimistic. Their optimism is confusing because the basis for their sentiment is unclear.
The present sentence also features the document’s sole instance of “religions” as a plural, concrete noun. Does this mean that “religion” and “religious” used elsewhere in the document are equally as broad? Consider what the fathers said, for example, in article 6: “It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community.” This sentence, with its reference to “any religion,” when combined with the present sentence’s use of “religions,” suggests the council fathers were genuinely not discriminating among religions in those instances they did not specify Catholicism as the “true religion.”
Which is confusing, because the close reading presented above of articles 1-4 suggested the council fathers were perhaps speaking of Catholicism alone, not religion generally. An educated Catholic layperson therefore must ask: Did the council fathers really swap out the Church, with its supernatural privileges and immunities, for all other conceivable religions? And if so, why the subtlety, including citations to sources which spoke of Catholicism specifically, not religions indiscriminately?
Two sentences in article 3 point up the problem. The first is: “The reason is that the exercise of religion, by its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God.” Were the council fathers saying any religion sets the course of life towards God? This is inconceivable given the truth claims in article 1, and yet here at the end of the document they indicate “religions” are the focus of their attention. The next sentence then features one of the footnotes which seemingly referred to Catholicism: “No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.(3)” As described above, this citation to Pacem in Terris talks about the limits placed on government by God’s authority, which an educated Catholic layperson would think is mediated through the Catholic Church.[8] And yet it seems, for the reasons just explained, that the fathers were simultaneously grouping all religions into one. Nothing but confusion follows this approach.
“There is a growing consciousness of the personal responsibility that every man has.”
A repeat of assertions from article 1.
“All this is evident.”
The council fathers had not previously addressed how they knew things like, “a growing consciousness of the personal responsibility that every man has.” Now they assert it was obvious. Must an educated Catholic layperson of today see the same thing? And if not, has the situation changed, or is the layperson simply obtuse? The fathers provide no guidance on these points.
“Consequently, in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society.”
In the penultimate sentence of the document, the council fathers state a new motive for their teaching: “in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind.” They do not speak here of human dignity or rights. They do not mention the Gospel. The goal seems entirely sociological and political, which is confusing to an educated Catholic layperson because its connection with Revelation, the source of the fathers’ magisterial authority, is unclear.[9]
“May the God and Father of all grant that the human family, through careful observance of the principle of religious freedom in society, may be brought by the grace of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit to the sublime and unending and ‘glorious freedom of the sons of God’ (Rom. 8:21).”
In an abrupt contrast with the prior sentence, the council fathers now say religious freedom is a means by which the “human family” may become Catholic, at least if “the sublime and unending ‘glorious freedom of the sons of God” means membership in the Church. Perhaps, as they saw it, religious freedom could do both: ensure that “peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind” as the prior sentence had it, and bring all to “the sublime and unending ‘glorious freedom of the sons of God,” as they state here. In any event, at the very end the fathers again touch on evangelization.
The peroration is a place for elevated speech, of course, but the new elements are confusing. Peace, harmony, and evangelization were not emphasized before. And so a final question: Is religious freedom just a precondition for better evangelization, akin to how the pax Romana assisted in the spread of the early Church, thus rendering most of the document pretextual?
Conclusion to article 15
The final article is a grab-bag of assertions held together by high aspiration. This is consistent with the prior articles. And here, as throughout the document, the council fathers’ optimism is supported by the complete omission of a word an educated Catholic layperson would think relevant when discussing the life of the Church in the world—sin.[10]
[1] “This social doctrine implies as well responsibilities regarding the building, organization and functioning of society, that is to say, political, economic and administrative obligations — obligations of a secular nature — which belong to the lay faithful, not to priests or religious. These responsibilities belong to the laity in a distinctive manner, by reason of the secular condition of their state of life, and of thesecular natureof their vocation. By fulfilling these responsibilities, the lay faithful put the Church’s social teaching into action and thus fulfil the Church’s secular mission. [Emphasis and internal citations omitted.]” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 83, retrieved on April 12, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils
/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html.
[2] Retrieved on April 12, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council /documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html.
[3] Para. 142-145, retrieved on April 12, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem.html; 55 Acta Apostolicae Sedis (1963), pp. 295-296, retrieved on April 12, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-55-1963-ocr.pdf.
[4] “Political authority exercised at the level of the international community must be regulated by law, ordered to the common good and respectful of the principle of subsidiarity. “The public authority of the world community is not intended to limit the sphere of action of the public authority of the individual political community, much less to take its place. On the contrary, its purpose is to create, on a world basis, an environment in which the public authorities of each political community, their citizens and intermediate associations can carry out their tasks, fulfil their duties and exercise their rights with greater security.” Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ¶ 441, retrieved on May 1, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils /justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html.
[5] “The fifth commandment forbids as gravely contrary to the moral law: direct and intentional murder and cooperation in it. [Emphasis omitted.]” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 470, retrieved on April 18, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[6] “The common good involves: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person, the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of persons and society, and the peace and security of all.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 408, retrieved on April 20, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[7]“Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 481, retrieved on April 20, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/
documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[8] “Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. the Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 2244, retrieved on April 28, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7W.HTM.
[9]”The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the deposit of faith has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone, that is, to the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, and to the bishops in communion with him. To this Magisterium, which in the service of the Word of God enjoys the certain charism of truth, belongs also the task of defining dogmas which are formulations of the truths contained in divine Revelation. This authority of the Magisterium also extends to those truths necessarily connected with Revelation.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 16, retrieved on April 28, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.
[10] “In consequence of original sin human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural powers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin. This inclination is called concupiscence.” Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 77, retrieved on April 28, 2024, from: https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html.