|
|
|
Religious Liberty |
|
The right to religious freedom is among the most widely affirmed and deeply valued human and civil liberties in our time. We rightly regard it as one of the most precious blessings of our liberal democratic heritage. Yet it also is a right often misunderstood. When the Church supports religious liberty, she does not thereby sanction a right to believe whatever one wishes, to choose whatever religion happens to suit one’s fancy, or to choose no religion at all. Nor is it implied that one religion is as good or as true as the next. What is at stake is the right of persons and communities to be free from societal, and especially governmental, compulsion regarding religious belief, life, and worship. This is the application to religious life of a principle frequently expressed in the tradition of the Church: that, as Pope John Paul II puts it, “freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought” (homily in Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Baltimore, October 8, 1995). The most thorough treatment of this subject by the modern Magisterium is found in the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae. This important document forms the basis of the topic’s treatment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (“The social duty of religion and the right to religious freedom,” CCC 2104-2109, presented as part of the explanation of the first commandment). As the Declaration’s Latin title suggests, the Council stresses the requirement of “the principle of religious liberty,” rightly understood, for the dignity of the human person and the fulfillment of the human vocation: “The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others. The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right” (Dignitatis Humanae, 2; cf. CCC 1907). Moral Foundations of Religious Liberty • The dignity of the human person, a being “endowed with reason and free will, and therefore bearing personal responsibility,” lies precisely in the capacity to direct oneself toward the final end of human life: knowledge and love of God. As the Council says, human beings are “impelled by their very nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth.” They also are “bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.” However, this obligation cannot be satisfied in a way in keeping with human nature without “both psychological freedom and immunity from external coercion.” It follows that the right to religious freedom is grounded “not in the subjective attitude of the individual but in his very nature”; and for this reason the right “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it” (Dignitatis Humanae, 2). And the Council adds that “everybody has the duty and consequently the right to seek the truth in religious matters so that, through the use of appropriate means [free inquiry with the help of teaching and instruction, communication and dialogue], he may prudently form judgments of conscience which are sincere and true” (Dignitatis Humanae, 3, emphasis added). The Council further notes that Divine Revelation confirms these conclusions drawn from rational reflection on human nature. Christ and his Apostles after him, while stressing the duty of individuals to seek and adhere to revealed truth, nevertheless refused to coerce their hearers into belief. From the earliest times, the Church has taught that such coercion is as wrong as it is counterproductive: One can force a person to his knees, but a genuine act of faith or worship cannot be compelled from without (cf. Dignitatis Humanae, 10). During his 1995 visit to the United Nations and the United States, Pope John Paul II told an interfaith gathering: “Religious tolerance is based on the conviction that God wishes to be adored by people who are free: a conviction which requires us to respect and honor the inner sanctuary of conscience in which each person meets God. The Catholic Church wholly supports this conviction” (greeting in Baltimore cathedral, October 8, 1995). The right to religious liberty is not absolute, however. When its exercise threatens the just peace and stability of civil society; when the practices of some religious cult harm persons physically or mentally; when some invoke religious liberty to justify discrimination or as a tool to deny others the full rights of citizenship – in these and similar cases the competent civil authority must seek fair and upright means to defend the temporal common good against such abuses. Role of Civil Authority • Beyond redressing abuses and adopting a position of neutrality, civil authority has an eminently positive role to play with regard to religious liberty. It must “recognize and look with favor on the religious life of the citizens” (Dignitatis Humanae, 3). Public authority must “undertake to safeguard the religious freedom of all the citizens in an effective manner by just legislation and other appropriate means. It must help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life so that the citizens will be really in a position to exercise their religious rights and fulfill their religious duties and so that society itself may enjoy the benefits of justice and peace, which result from man’s faithfulness to God and his holy will” (Dignitatis Humanae, 6). Yet when rulers of a given nation attempt to dictate the religious beliefs for the nation, to control or curtail the religious life of the citizens, they decisively overstep the boundaries of their this-worldly competence. Doctrines such as the cuius regio, eius religio of post-Reformation Europe plagued by religious wars are seriously mistaken. (The phrase, meaning “whose region, his religion,” comes from the Peace of Augsburg [1555].) By contrast, Pope John Paul quotes with admiration a ruler of that time who withstood such confusion: “At a time in Western history when heretics were being tried and burned at the stake, the last Polish king of the Jagiellon dynasty [declared]. . . ‘I am not the king of your consciences’ ” (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 154). The Pope’s reference to heretic-burning is a sad reminder of those periods in history when certain Protestants and Catholics, including some in positions of political and even ecclesiastical authority, sought to compel belief by means ranging from social discrimination to physical force. Vatican Council II stresses that even in such dark times characterized by confused and/or malicious practice, it “always remained the teaching of the Church that no one is to be coerced into believing” (Dignitatis Humanae, 12). This doctrine is also evident in certain magisterial documents of the nineteenth century, which present a more restrictive view of religious liberty as a civil right. The teaching of Dignitatis Humanae is thus correctly understood as a development of Catholic doctrine, not a departure from outmoded Church teaching. As a consequence of the social nature of the human person, both religious duties and the right to religious freedom apply not only to individuals but also to families, associations, and various forms of communities (cf. CCC 2105-2106; Dignitatis Humanae, 3-5). Of particular importance is the role of the family in the religious upbringing of children. The parental right in this area, which follows from their grave obligation as primary educators of their offspring, must be recognized and respected. The Second Vatican Council explains: “Every family . . . has the right freely to organize its own religious life in the home under the control of the parents. These have the right to decide in accordance with their own religious beliefs the form of religious upbringing which is to be given to their children. The civil authority must therefore recognize the right of parents to choose with genuine freedom schools or other means of education. Parents should not be subjected directly or indirectly to unjust burdens because of this freedom of choice. Furthermore, the rights of parents are violated if their children are compelled to attend classes which are not in agreement with the religious beliefs of the parents or if there is but a single compulsory system of education from which all religious instruction is excluded” (Dignitatis Humanae, 5). The Council reserves some of its strongest language for its defense of the liberty of the Church within civil society: “Among those things which pertain to the good of the Church and indeed to the good of society here on earth, things which must everywhere and at all times be safeguarded and defended from all harm, the most outstanding surely is that the Church enjoy that freedom of action which her responsibility for the salvation of men requires. This is a sacred liberty with which the only-begotten Son of God endowed the Church. . . . Indeed it belongs so intimately to the Church that to attack it is to oppose the will of God. The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle governing relations between the Church and public authorities and the whole civil order” (Dignitatis Humanae, 13). This freedom pertains to the Church as an institution, as a spiritual authority, and as a community of believers enjoying the same rights of conscience as their fellow citizens. Violations of Religious Liberty • Various political regimes of the twentieth century committed gross violations against religious liberty: refusing the faithful the right to worship in public and often even in private; removing all religious education from the schools; forcefully propagating atheism; preventing those known to be believers or adherents of faiths other than that officially endorsed by the state from receiving a full education or advancing in their professions. The list of abuses could be extended indefinitely. The people of the United States are fortunate not to have suffered the worst sort of open persecutions and to have freedom of belief, worship, and assembly guaranteed in the Constitution. Even here, however, many citizens are justly disturbed by trends such as the virtual removal of religion from the public schools, and the heavy financial burden placed on parents seeking to give their children a religious education in private or parochial schools. Moreover, our secularized society, characterized by an individualistic outlook and an inordinate pursuit of wealth and comfort, may have an adverse impact on religious freedom in ways more dangerous for being more subtle. This sort of political culture tends to breed indifference and superficiality, in religious matters as in other important areas of life. These can do even more to undermine religion than open hatred for Christianity and violent persecution can do. Moreover, there is some evidence that the founders of liberal democracy had this watering-down of religion as a concrete goal. Note this revealing passage in the 1748 treatise Spirit of the Laws by the French Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu (1689-1755): “[A] more sure way to attack religion is by favor, by the commodities of life, by the hope of wealth; not by indignation, but by what makes men lukewarm, when other passions act on our souls, and those that religion inspires are silent. A general rule: with regard to changes in religion, invitations are stronger than penalties” (Bk. 25, Ch. 12). Thomas Jefferson privately expressed his confident expectation that “the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States.” It is not surprising, then, that Pope John Paul II urged Americans to acknowledge and meet “[t]he challenge facing you . . . to increase people’s awareness of the importance for society of religious freedom; to defend that freedom against those who would take religion out of the public domain and establish secularism as America’s official faith” (greeting in Baltimore cathedral).
In a situation of
greater freedom, and consequently of less societal or governmental
support for religious belief and life, it is necessary that people of
religious conviction feel a corresponding increase in personal
responsibility to seek and live by the truth, and to do their part to
help create a culture truly open – not merely indifferent – to religion.
Catholics have an obligation to pay careful attention to the teaching
authority (Magisterium) of the Church in forming their consciences. They
must endeavor to become men and women with the moral and intellectual
backbone to counter the prevailing tide of lukewarmness and materialism.
“For this reason this Vatican Council urges everyone, especially those
responsible for educating others, to try to form men with a respect for
the moral order who will obey lawful authority and be lovers of true
freedom – men, that is, who will form their own judgments in the light
of truth, direct their activities with a sense of responsibility, and
strive for what is true and just in willing cooperation with others.
Religious liberty therefore should have this further purpose and aim of
enabling men to act with greater responsibility in fulfilling their
obligations in society” (Dignitatis Humanae, 8). Ultimately, religious
liberty should open a path to the fullness of truth that, as John Paul
observes throughout his encyclical on moral principles The Splendor of
Truth, Veritatis Splendor (1993), alone can make people truly free. See: Authority; Church and State; Civil Law; Conscience; Conscience and the Magisterium; Conscience Formation; Development of Doctrine; Freedom, Human; Freemasonry; Politics; Religion, Virtue of. |
|
|
|
|
