Religious Liberty Condemned?

[mortify]

The following are condemened statements (see Syllabus of Errors and Lamentabili Sane):
[i][color="#0000FF"][size="3"]
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc

In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
[/size][/color][/i]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='mortify' date='09 March 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1268111191' post='2069397']
The following are condemened statements (see Syllabus of Errors and Lamentabili Sane):
[i][color="#0000FF"][size="3"]
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc

In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
[/size][/color][/i]
[/quote]

It's excellent that the Magisterium condemned such statements!

Edited March 9, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Jesus_lol]

i like how you arranged those statements so they made a coherent paragraph

[Nihil Obstat]

I always get confused by those "the following phrases are condemned" lines.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='mortify' date='09 March 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1268111191' post='2069397']
The following are condemened statements (see Syllabus of Errors and Lamentabili Sane):
[i][color="#0000FF"][size="3"]
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc

In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
[/size][/color][/i]
[/quote]

The Church's teachings do not contradict any of these.

Freedom exists in order to enable us to do what is right. Therefore, we each have the freedom to worship according to the Catholic faith. It is a total freedom from religious coercion. Everyone must be free from coercion for the purpose of their following the truth of the Catholic faith. How they use this freedom, however, is not the fault of the Church or the government that does not coerce, but of the individual. This freedom is materially abused when an individual makes use of it in worshiping in an incorrect manner and formally abused when they know better.

One could argue that a government could enforce Catholicism, but even coercing a person into Catholicism removes the freedom which authentic charity requires in order to truly worship God as a free act. Freedom from coercion must be granted, therefore, for the sake of all who would come to Christ, but this leaves the possibility that it will be abused.

None of this conflicts with what you've said. However, the results of these teachings and the widespread abuse of it (which cannot be helped without committing abuses against freedom) have created a situation in which it outwardly appears that the Church has contradicted herself.

God bless,

Micah

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='mortify' date='09 March 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1268111191' post='2069397']
The following are condemened statements (see Syllabus of Errors and Lamentabili Sane):
[i][color="#0000ff"][size="3"]
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc

In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
[/size][/color][/i]
[/quote]

I'm confused. Those statements from Pius IX's own encyclicals aren't to be found in his encyclicals, and he wouldn't condemn his own anyway. What am I missing?

(Also, how are you always on in the middle of the day Rexi?)

Edited March 9, 2010 by aalpha1989

[Resurrexi]

St. Thoams Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, II-II, Q. 10:

Article 8. Whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to the faith?
Objection 1. It would seem that unbelievers ought by no means to be compelled to the faith. For it is written (Matthew 13:28) that the servants of the householder, in whose field cockle had been sown, asked him: "Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?" and that he answered: "No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it": on which passage Chrysostom says (Hom. xlvi in Matth.): "Our Lord says this so as to forbid the slaying of men. For it is not right to slay heretics, because if you do you will necessarily slay many innocent persons." Therefore it seems that for the same reason unbelievers ought not to be compelled to the faith.

Objection 2. Further, we read in the Decretals (Dist. xlv can., De Judaeis): "The holy synod prescribes, with regard to the Jews, that for the future, none are to be compelled to believe." Therefore, in like manner, neither should unbelievers be compelled to the faith.

Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.) that "it is possible for a man to do other things against his will, but he cannot believe unless he is willing." Therefore it seems that unbelievers ought not to be compelled to the faith.

Objection 4. It is said in God's person (Ezekiel 18:32 [Ezekiel 33:11]): "I desire not the death of the sinner [Vulgate: 'of him that dieth']." Now we ought to conform our will to the Divine will, as stated above (I-II, 19, A9,10). Therefore we should not even wish unbelievers to be put to death.

On the contrary, It is written (Luke 14:23): "Go out into the highways and hedges; and compel them to come in." Now men enter into the house of God, i.e. into Holy Church, by faith. Therefore some ought to be compelled to the faith.

I answer that, Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.

On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received.

Reply to Objection 1. Some have understood the authority quoted to forbid, not the excommunication but the slaying of heretics, as appears from the words of Chrysostom. Augustine too, says (Ep. ad Vincent. xciii) of himself: "It was once my opinion that none should be compelled to union with Christ, that we should deal in words, and fight with arguments. However this opinion of mine is undone, not by words of contradiction, but by convincing examples. Because fear of the law was so profitable, that many say: Thanks be to the Lord Who has broken our chains asunder." Accordingly the meaning of Our Lord's words, "Suffer both to grow until the harvest," must be gathered from those which precede, "lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root the wheat also together with it." For, Augustine says (Contra Ep. Parmen. iii, 2) "these words show that when this is not to be feared, that is to say, when a man's crime is so publicly known, and so hateful to all, that he has no defenders, or none such as might cause a schism, the severity of discipline should not slacken."

Reply to Objection 2. Those Jews who have in no way received the faith, ought not by no means to be compelled to the faith: if, however, they have received it, they ought to be compelled to keep it, as is stated in the same chapter.

Reply to Objection 3. Just as taking a vow is a matter of will, and keeping a vow, a matter of obligation, so acceptance of the faith is a matter of the will, whereas keeping the faith, when once one has received it, is a matter of obligation. Wherefore heretics should be compelled to keep the faith. Thus Augustine says to the Count Boniface (Ep. clxxxv): "What do these people mean by crying out continually: 'We may believe or not believe just as we choose. Whom did Christ compel?' They should remember that Christ at first compelled Paul and afterwards taught Him."

Reply to Objection 4. As Augustine says in the same letter, "none of us wishes any heretic to perish. But the house of David did not deserve to have peace, unless his son Absalom had been killed in the war which he had raised against his father. Thus if the Catholic Church gathers together some of the perdition of others, she heals the sorrow of her maternal heart by the delivery of so many nations."

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='09 March 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1268167103' post='2069703']
I'm confused. Those statements from Pius IX's own encyclicals aren't to be found in his encyclicals, and he wouldn't condemn his own anyway. What am I missing? [/quote]

Fuller and more detailed of the statements are found in the references at the end of each condemned statement.

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='09 March 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1268167103' post='2069703']
(Also, how are you always on in the middle of the day Rexi?)
[/quote]

I'm printing off news articles for the extemporaneous speaking event for forensics class.

[OraProMe]

"In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852."

Vatican II seems to contradict these two. I forget the document...dignitatis humane or something.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='09 March 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1268170079' post='2069747']
Vatican II seems to contradict these two. I forget the document...dignitatis humane or something.
[/quote]

Nope, [i]Dignitiatis Humanæ[/i] is perfectly in line with the teachings of previous popes and ecumenical councils when it is interpreted correctly. If you find any contradiction between a Vatican II document and an older magisterial document, it is your interpretation that is wrong, not the document itself.

[OraProMe]

Can you give us an interpretation then, Rex? That would be a bit more convincing than you just saying so.

[Resurrexi]

Catholicism should be the state religion whenever this is possible.

[OraProMe]

I mean can you give us an interpretation of DH, which specifically says any properly constituted state should pass laws allowing its citizens to believe what they want within due reason (that is, aslong as it does not threaten the security of the state or harm others), with the statements in the original post. Archbishop Lefebvre and later Bp. Fellay both submitted this question to the Vatican and never got a response.

[OraProMe]

Religious liberty and state religion aren't the same thing anyway. England has an established Church and grants its citizens freedom of religion.

[Resurrexi]

The following article shows how[i] Dignitatis Humanæ[/i] is to be interpreted. The article begins by going over what pre-conciliar pontiffs stated about the obligations of society to the true religion. It then goes on to look at the text of [i]Dignitatis Humanæ[/i] and how certain words in that document are to be understood. It next looks to statements by the popes who reigned immediately before the council, whose teachings Dignitatis Humanæ develops. It then adds commentary and takes a relevant quote from St. Thomas. You are free to choose not to read the article, but you cannot blame me for failing to provide an interpretation.

Quid Roma Dixit: Examining Dignitatis Humanae
By Jacob A Michael

Of the sixteen documents promulgated by the Second Vatican Council, there is little doubt that Dignitatis Humanae ("The Dignity of the Human Person", also known as the Declaration on Religious Freedom) is the most hotly contested, and has caused the most consternation amongst Traditional Catholics. The more bold will simply reject the document as a blatant contradiction of the Church's Traditional teaching concerning religious liberty and the obligation of the State to profess the Catholic Faith. Even those who genuinely want to adhere to the teaching of the council, and read its documents in a Traditional light, will often come up short when reading this document.

Before examining the document itself, it is our responsibility to first acquaint ourselves with the Traditional teaching of the Church on the subjects involved. What have the popes of past ages said about religious liberty? What did they mean? How did they define the terms?

The Church's Traditional teaching is rooted, ultimately, in Creation itself; this is a key point to notice, because the development of the subject by Vatican II is also rooted in Creation. Man is created by God, and as such, is entirely dependent upon Him for life, health, breath, sustenance, etc. Through Creation, Man can known with certainty that God exists, and can easily make the next logical deduction - that God is owed thanksgiving, honor, gratitude, and worship.

This is the most basic foundation of any discussion of religious liberty; it must be accepted by anyone who claims to be a Christian, in fact, even non-Catholics. It is written all over Sacred Scripture; Man owes God the worship which belongs to Him, is obligated to confess Him, to believe in Him, to accept His revelation.

In 1864, Blessed Pope Pius IX wrote:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who ... dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." ... [T]hey do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." (Quanta Cura, 3)

The Pope here condemns the complete separation of Church and State, which is to say, a situation in which the State either professes no religion at all, or makes no distinction between true religion and false religions (which really amounts to the same thing). He also condemns the "absolute liberty" of conscience, "which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil."

Writing in 1899, Pope Leo XII said much about this idea of "liberty" in his encyclical Libertas. He acknowledges that "Liberty, the highest of natural endowments, being the portion only of intellectual or rational natures, confers on man this dignity - that he is 'in the hand of his counsel' and has power over his actions." (Libertas, 1) However, he notes that liberty must be exercised with responsibility: "the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State." (Libertas, 10)

Because the State, no less than the individual, has received its authority and power from God Himself, it too bears the obligation to acknowledge God publicly and to give its approval to the true religion. Thus, Leo XIII also condemned "the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State." (Libertas, 18) On the subject of false liberty, he said:

This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recog nition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. (Libertas, 21)

Thus he concludes, "justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness - namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges." (Libertas, 21)

Similar sentiments are to be found in the writings of Pope St. Pius X, who said:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. (Vehementer Nos, 3)

This Traditional teaching reached its apex with Pope Pius XI, who instituted the Feast of Christ the King with his encyclical Quas Primas, on the Social Kingship of Christ:

Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord. (Quas Primas, 1)

Basing many of his arguments on Sacred Scripture, Pope Pius XI wrote that Christ is King over all nations; as it is written in Psalm 2, God has made "the ends of the earth" His possession; St. John's Apocalypse hails Him as the "king of kings, and Lord of lords," which is to say, He is the king over all earthly kings; all men, and all States, are obliged to acknowledge this Universal King, both privately and publicly.

Thus far we have seen what is the Traditional teaching of the Church on religious liberty. The State has an obligation to profess the Catholic Faith in its official capacity; all men have an obligation to s

ubmit to Christ the King and to worship God according to the Truth of the Catholic Faith. Unbridled liberty of conscience leads to the collapse of society; the separation of Church and State leads to a godless State, to an atheistic State in which immorality cannot help but reign.

Dignitatis Humanae picks up this thread in its opening paragraphs, stating that the Council "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." (DH, 1) However, the document states that it "intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society." (DH, 1)

Here there is a subtle distinction, but one which must be understood if we are to hope to get anything out of the rest of this document. The Council declares that it is not speaking, in this document, of the obligation of men and societies to profess "the true religion" and to belong to "the one Church of Christ." Rather, the document addresses the question of Man's "inviolable rights," as it affects him individually and within a constituted society.

In short, the question asked by Dignitatis Humanae is not, "should all men profess the Catholic Faith and belong to the Catholic Church?" It has already answered this in the affirmative. Rather, the question is asks is, "how are men to be treated if they do not profess the Catholic Faith and belong to the one true Church?"

If what follows is difficult to comprehend, this should be no surprise at all; what the Council is touching upon here is the very mystery of Free Will, and its somewhat tense relationship to God's Sovereignty. As already noted by Leo XIII, Man alone among the creatures of the earth has the ability to choose voluntarily; Man alone among the beasts has will, and that will is free, by God's own design.

If God demands that all men must acknowledge Him, worship Him, etc., He also has created Man with the ability to disobey. Man is obligated, but free. Note a very important distinction: Man is "free" to disobey, but he does not have the "right" to disobey. The only things that can be called absolute "rights" are those things which have been granted to Man by God. Thus, Man has an absolute right to worship God and to profess the Catholic Faith; this right is not contingent upon anything. No one can remove this right, and it would remain a right even if the State were to forbid it. Man does not have the right to reject God; that is not a right that God has given him; yet, because God has created Man with Free Will, Man does have the freedom to reject God. The distinction between what Man is free to do, and what Man has a right to do, is a fine distinction - but it must be sharply defined as such.

To illustrate the point, it is obvious that Man is free to walk into a store and steal a loaf of bread; that is his choice, an exercise of his will, which is always free. But Man does not have a right to steal bread, as becomes perfectly clear when the police capture him and cart him off to jail.

Much of the confusion generated by Dignitatis Humanae stems from the fact that most people who read the document fail to let the document itself define the terminology; we tend to import our own me

anings into the text, based on our societal and cultural situation. Thus, when DH speaks of "religious liberty," we often read "separation of Church and State" into this term, because that is what it has come to mean in our society. This is not how the document defines the term, however:

This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. (DH, 1)

The first paragraph states that truth cannot be imposed; it must be received on its own merits, and cannot

be forced upon the human mind. Leading from this, the second paragraph declares that "religious freedom" is synonymous with "immunity from coercion in civil society."

When the Council later states that "the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person" (DH, 2), it alludes to what we have mentioned about the very order of Creation; the "dignity of the human person" is that Man has been created with Free Will, and that Free Will cannot - must not - be violated. Put another way, the State has no right to coerce or force its subjects to believe this or that thing, because God Himself does not so coerce Man, and thus He has not given this right to the State.

The document describes the same thing in a more explicit statement:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. (DH, 2)

This gets to the answer of the question we asked earlier: what if Man does not fulfill his obligation to God? What then? He must continue to remain free from coercion, and not be forced to act contrary to his beliefs. Here there is the unfolding of two different elements: passive and active. Man cannot be forced to believe anything - this is passive. Man acts according to his beliefs, and so he cannot be forced to act in a way that contradicts his beliefs - for example, the State, were it to be a Catholic State, could not lawfully impose an obligation upon all men to attend Mass on Sundays. It would be a violation of Man's Free Will if a government agent were to invade his home on Sunday morning, put a gun to his head, and force him to walk to the nearest parish for evening Vespers. This, too, is passive.

But what about when we move into the active realm? Let us say that I have two beliefs: first, that Mass is an abomination, and I must never attend it; second, that I must worship a false god on Thursdays. The first is passive, the second is active; the first is something I will not do, according to my beliefs, and the second is something I must do, according to my beliefs. It would be pure coercion if the State were to force me to go to Mass; but what if the State were to prohibit me from worshiping my false god on Thursdays? Would that also be a form of coercion?

This is where Man's right to "religious freedom" (understood as immunity from coercion) becomes less and less absolute, and more and more contingent, because it becomes less a problem of coercion than a problem of prohibition. Hence, the Council includes the all-important qualifier: "no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."

The Council declares that all men are bound by the obligation to seek the Truth, and to adhere to it once they discover it; however, even if they fail to live up to this obligation, Free Will remains, and coercion continues to be a violation of human dignity as a result. Thus:

In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. (DH, 2)

Here again, the Council is walking a very thin tightrope and attempting to maintain balance; part of immunity from coercion means immunity from prohibition, yet this is very much contingent - "the exercise of this right," that is, active expression of Man's beliefs, "is not to be impeded," with the important condition that "just public order be observed." This will, of course, vary from place to place. In a Catholic State, where the majority of citizens are practicing Catholics, it would no doubt be a disturbance of the public order to allow a Muslim community to set up its own mosque and begin distributing religious literature. On the other hand, in just about any society, it would be a disturbance of the public order to allow a Satanist to freely exercise his religion, when that religion includes such things as human sacrifice.

There are, in fact, limits to this right to religious freedom.

In bringing this discussion to a close, it would be a helpful thing to explore, if only briefly, the statement of the Council that it "intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society." Which recent popes? We do, in fact, find something similar to the statements of Dignitatis Humanae in the writings of Pius XI, the very same Pope who insisted upon the rights of Jesus Christ as King of Nations. In his encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge, he writes:

The believer has an absolute right (diritto inalienabile) to profess his Faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of Faith are against natural law. Parents who are earnest and conscious of their educative duties, have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school questions fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law, and are immoral. (Mit Brennender Sorge, 31)

While some would want to argue that Pius XI is only talking about Catholics in this paragraph, that is, that only Catholics have the right to profess their Faith, "live according to its dictates," and educate their children, this interpretation cannot be sustained by the document itself. Pius XI does not use the word "Catholic" here, he uses the more generic word "believer"; and while discussing the rights of parents to educate their children in the Faith, he does not say "the Catholic faith," but rather, "their faith."

Father Brian Harrison writes:

Confronting the situation in Nazi Germany, where Catholics, Protestants and Jews alike were being severely harassed in their religious practice, Pius XI in Mit brennender sorge (1937) used an ambiguous expression - "the believer" rather than "the Catholic" or "the Catholic believer" - to designate the subject of "an inalienable right" to freedom from state interference, by virtue of "natural law" (cited in Davies, p. 292). This choice of words was surely deliberate: if the Pope had specified only Catholics in that context, he would naturally have been taken to mean that Jews and Protestants suffered no injustice when Hitler suppressed or interfered with their public worship. Clearly, Pius XI did not want to say that; so Bishop De Smedt's inference that his declaration also refers to non-Catholic "believers" seems quite reasonable to me. (Fr. Brian Harrison, "The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty", Living Tradition, January, 1993, source)

In a similar vein, Pope Pius XII used the language of the "dignity" of the "human person" to defend the rights of religious freedom; in his 1942 Christmas Message, he said:

He who would have the Star of Peace shine out and stand over society should cooperate, for his part, in giving back to the human person the dignity given to it by God from the very beginning ... He should uphold respect for and the practical realization of the following fundamental personal rights; the right to maintain and develop one's corporal, intellectual and moral life and especially the right to religious formation and education; the right to worship God in private and public and to carry on religious works of charity; the right to marry and to achieve the aim of married life; the right to conjugal and domestic society; the right to work, as the indispensable means towards the maintenance of family life; the right to free choice of state of life, and hence, too, of the priesthood or religious life; the right to the use of material goods; in keeping with his duties and social limitations. (Pius XII, Christmas Eve Radio Message, 1942, source)

In a somewhat more explicit manner, this same Pope reiterated these things in the document Ci Riesce; the passage in question is worth quoting at length:

Another question, essentially different, is this: could the norm be established in a community of states - at least in certain circumstances - that the free exercise of a belief and of a religious or moral practice which possess validity in one of the member states, be not hindered throughout the entire territory of the community of nations by state laws or coercive measures? In other words, the question is raised whether in these circumstances "non impedire" or toleration is permissible, and whether, consequently, positive repression is not always a duty.

We have just adduced the authority of God. Could God, although it would be possible and easy for Him to repress error and moral deviation, in some cases choose the "non impedire" without contradicting His infinite perfection? Could it be that in certain circumstances He would not give men any mandate, would not impose any duty, and would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false? A look at things as they are gives an affirmative answer. Reality shows that error and sin are in the world in great measure. God reprobates them, but He permits them to exist. Hence the affirmation, "religious and moral error must always be impeded, when it is possible, because toleration of them is in itself immoral", is not valid absolutely and unconditionally.

Moreover, God has not given even to human authority such an absolute and universal command in matters of faith and morality. Such a command is unknown to the common convictions of mankind, to Christian conscience, to the sources of Revelation and to the practice of the Church ... The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to higher and more general norms, which in some circumstances permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a greater good. (Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, Sec. 5, source)

These are the teachings of the "recent popes" which the Council sought to develop, and did so in a very refined way. The State has the right to repress error, but this right is not always absolute; as the Pope affirmed, in certain circumstances God "would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false." The dignity of the human person, which is to say, the gift of Free Will which is his by natural law as part of Creation, must not be violated; this means that he has an absolute right to remain free from coercion, and a more limited right to remain free from repression.

No one can force me to believe; forced belief results in an invalid conversion, because faith must be a free assent. No one should force me to positively do something contrary to my beliefs; it would be to go beyond the limits that God Himself has set if the State were to impose obligatory Catholic worship upon all citizens. No one ought to create an environment in which men are more-or-less coerced to convert, and this leads to the limited right of Man to publicly exercise his faith. It is not difficult to see how a law which would have me thrown in jail for attending a Muslim mosque would create such an environment, and would ultimately result in forced conversions. Yet, this is a limited right, and one which entirely depends on the situation of the State. What would be more conducive to preserving the public order? St. Thomas Aquinas comments:

On the other hand, the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated, except perchance in order to avoid an evil, e.g. the scandal or disturbance that might ensue, or some hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith. For this reason the Church, at times, has tolerated the rites even of heretics and pagans, when unbelievers were very numerous. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-IIae, q. 10, a. 11)

In States which are not Catholic, St. Thomas' wisdom most certainly applies. Unbelievers are indeed "very numerous," and thus, it is more profitable in these cases to tolerate the public exercise of their faith, because this would avoid a "hindrance to the salvation of those who if they were unmolested might gradually be converted to the faith."

If we avoid reading into Dignitatis Humanae certain concepts that are not there, such as a notion of "religious freedom" that is specifically excluded by the document itself, or the notion that Man has a positive right to believe whatever he wishes, we can see how the document is indeed a legitimate development of the Traditional teaching. It does exactly what it intended to do: take up the thoughts of recent popes, such as Pius IX and Pius XII, and clarify their meaning.

Religious freedom, in the end, is not a license for Man to believe error and worship falsely; Man is still bound by his obligation to the Truth, and to God Himself - and DH confirms this explicitly. It is, however, a statement about the treatment of human beings by the State when those human beings do not profess the Truth and worship God according to His dictates. Such persons are not to be coerced, forced, persecuted, or - in certain circumstances, and within due limits - prohibited from publicly exercising their faith. Such is the teaching of even the Angelic Doctor, as well as recent Popes of unimpeachable orthodoxy.

If Dignitatis Humanae has been badly interpreted as a justification for the separation of Church and State, such cannot be supported ultimately by the words of the document itself. Only a Traditional reading of the document does full justice to its intent, and can be used as a defense against abuses of the same document.