Religious Freedom: Did Vatican II Change Church Doctrine?

Magisterium

In 1965 Vatican II published Dignitatis Humanae (the Declaration on Religious Liberty). Ever since, there has been controversy about whether that document contradicted the Catholic Church’s previous doctrinal teaching about religious freedom.

To explore this topic, we will look at what Dignitatis Humanae changed (section 1). Then we will see if it contradicts Church history (sections 2 and 3). Finally, we will explore whether it contradicts the Church’s views on the duties of a government (section 4 and 5).

I shall suggest that Dignitatis Humanae has changed Church policy, not doctrine.

1) What Did Dignitatis Humanae Change?

The story of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3) illustrates two types of freedom. Adam and Eve are free to choose to sin. Once they choose to sin, they are also free to take the fruit from the tree, as God does not prevent them from doing so. They are neither forced to sin, nor prevented from sinning.

Before Vatican II, the Church taught that no one could be forced to choose a faith. Dignitatis Humanae repeats this (paragraph 10).

However, the Church rejected the idea of not preventing people from practicing a faith. The Church thought that allowing non-Catholic faiths was allowing error or sin, which could mislead Catholics. So non-Catholic faiths were prevented. There could be occasional exceptions, if it were “less bad” to tolerate a faith, rather than suppress it. For example, doing so might prevent a religious war.

Dignitatis Humanae changes the Church’s approach. It says that people must have both types of religious freedom. They must not be forced to, or prevented from, practicing their faith. This is even the case if people have a non-Catholic faith.

On the surface this looks like a contradiction in Church teaching.

2) The Exceptions Solution

One solution to this problem has been argued by Brian Harrison. He notes that Dignitatis Humanae lists some exceptions to religious freedom. For example, it says that religious freedom can be restricted when:

  1. Public order requires it (paragraph 2).
  2. Dishonorable persuasive techniques are misleading vulnerable people, like the poor and uneducated (paragraph 4).
  3. Human welfare and morality may require limits (paragraph 7).

The “Exceptions Solution” says that there is no contradiction between what the Church used to say, and what it now says. This is because all the pre-1965 restrictions on religious freedom can be explained as instances of exceptions.

This approach makes some valid points. Medieval religion and politics were tightly interwoven. So, many medieval restrictions on religion did indeed have public order implications. This was also the case during the Reformation.

It continued to be the case in the nineteenth century. When popes such as Gregory XVI (d.1846), Pius IX (d.1878) and Leo XIII (d.1903) rejected religious freedom, it was often against a backdrop of public disorder. During the nineteenth century France went through four revolutions. In Germany Karl Marx was trying to incite revolution. In Italy, Pius IX’s minister, Pellegrino Rossi, was assassinated, prompting the pope to flee for his life. Later, the First Vatican Council (1870) finished early because bishops had to flee from Nationalist armies marching on Rome.

When revolutionaries called for Freedom of Religion, popes often heard and rejected the idea of Freedom from Religion. Dignitatis Humanae also rejects that idea (paragraph 5).

Pius IX rejected religious freedom as an insane idea (Quanta Cura [“Condemning Current Errors”], 1864). But in a context where some of the people calling for it are also trying to assassinate his ministers, he had understandable “public order reasons for his view.

The “Exceptions Solution” explains much of Church history. But there is still a problem. Sometimes the Church restricted religious freedom for spiritual reasons. For example, Leo XIII refers to the public order benefits of restricting religious freedom, but they are not the reasons for restricting it (Libertas [“On the Nature of Human Liberty”], 1888). He restricts it because it is sinful, false worship.

This means that the “exceptions” approach does not fully explain Church history unless there are other exceptions which Dignitatis Humanae does not mention. This intriguing thought raises the ambiguity issue.

3) Ambiguity Issue

Dignitatis Humanae lists the exceptions which are relevant when a human power (i.e., a government) limits religious freedom. It repeatedly and explicitly makes the point that it is referring only to “human powers.”

However, the Catholic Church has never considered itself to be merely a human power. (For example, see Libertas, paragraph 27). Dignitatis Humanae does not talk about any limits or exceptions to religious freedom for non-human powers. So, it is possible that there are other exceptions to religious freedom, which Dignitatis Humanae simply does not mention.

This possibility is the ambiguity of silence. It is an issue about what the document does not say, rather than what it says.

A positive reading of the silence is that there are indeed additional exceptions to religious freedom. The Church used those exceptions prior to 1965 and it now chooses not to use those exceptions. This interpretation means that Dignitatis Humanae does not change doctrine. It merely coincides with a change in Church policy (on which see section 6 below).

A negative reading of the silence is that Dignitatis Humanae lists the only exceptions to religious freedom. As those exceptions do not explain Church history, then Dignitatis Humanae is not consistent with what the Church did and taught prior to 1965. On this reading Dignitatis Humanae has changed Church doctrine.

If there is, indeed, a positive and a negative reading of Dignitatis Humanae, then that means that the document is ambiguous.

When a document is ambiguous, people normally try to clarify its meaning by referring to the intention of the author. As it happens, Dignitatis Humanae clarifies its intention on this issue. It states that it “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine” (paragraph 1).

This shows that the intention of Dignitatis Humanae is to not-change-doctrine. This suggests that any ambiguous silence in the document should be read positively, i.e., as not implying a doctrinal change. Reading the document in this way means that Church history is consistent with the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae.

However, there is a second problem raised by Dignitatis Humanae. Before 1965 the Church used to teach that governments had a duty to suppress non-Catholic religions. Dignitatis Humanae rejects the idea of such a duty. So, this gives the appearance of a further contradiction.

4) The Powers Solution

A solution to the problem of Government duties has been suggested by Thomas Pink. He argues that when the Church asked the state to prevent religious freedom for spiritual reasons, the Church was also delegating the power to do so. In the modern world the Church is choosing not to delegate that power. This means that states no longer have the power to prevent religious freedom, and so they can no longer have a duty to prevent religious freedom.

This means that there is no contradiction or change of Church teaching about the duty of the state. The Church has changed its policy about what powers are delegated to a state. In the absence of that delegation, the duty lapses.

To understand this idea, it is helpful to look at the difference between a doctrine and a policy.

5) Doctrine and Policy

A doctrine is a claim about what is true or false. “Jesus is God” is a doctrine, because it claims that “it is true that Jesus is God.” Doctrines cannot contradict each other, as contradictions cannot be true.

When doctrines deal with ethics, issues of truth become matters of goodness. This means that doctrines can also make claims about what is morally good.

A policy is a way of behaving which is instrumentally good (or “useful”) for achieving an outcome. For example, driving on the same side of the road is an instrumentally good way of avoiding vehicle accidents.

Until 1967 Sweden drove on the left side of the road, with the ethical goal of “avoiding accidents.” Then they switched to drive on the right. This is because neighboring countries drove on the right. With increased amounts of cross-border traffic, Sweden thought that driving on the right could be a better way of “avoiding accidents.” The underlying ethical goals remained the same (avoiding accidents), but the policy (which side of the road to drive on) completely reversed.

The issue of doctrines and policies is much more complicated than this simple summary. However, all that we need for the moment, is the recognition that there is a difference between doctrines and policies.

This means that when it looks like a reversal, or contradiction, we must be careful in jumping to conclusions that a doctrine has changed. It could be the case that a policy has been reversed, with no doctrinal changes at all.

6) Dignitatis Humanae Changes Policy

The Church’s pre-1965 position can be summed up as an argument, which went something like this:

Doctrine:       Governments must promote the Common Good.

Experience:   Regulating religious freedom promotes the Common Good.

Policy:          Therefore, Governments must regulate religious freedom.

For 1500 years the Church has been asking governments to limit religious freedom as a policy; not as a doctrine.

This policy worked well for the Church in the Medieval Period, as the Church had a degree of equality with national governments. When governments over-asserted themselves, the Church could defend itself using sanctions like Excommunication and Interdict. That helped to preserve the parity necessary to an effective working relationship.

In the years preceding Vatican II, the Church’s experience of governments underwent a significant change. Fascism, Atheistic Communism and Totalitarianism threatened the Church in profound ways. Secularism meant that the Church could no longer defend itself against over-mighty governments by using spiritual instruments such as Excommunication and Interdict. For the first time in 1500 years the Church needed a new policy for working with governments.

This is what occurs in Dignitatis Humanae. Previously, governments were delegated powers (see section 5) to work for specific spiritual goods within the Common Good. This meant Catholic Governments must protect Catholicism, for the sake of the Common Good.

After 1965 Church teaching remains the same. Government still has a duty to promote the Common Good. However, the Church now sees over-mighty government as a growing and serious threat to the Church. So, it has ended its delegation of spiritual powers to governments and has insisted that government must have nothing to do with religious matters at all.

Changing its policy led to some undermining of the Church in constitutionally Catholic countries. But in a global context, it represented the best (or, perhaps, the least-worst) way of ensuring the global effectiveness of the Church’s mission. On that note, we should not forget that the loudest applause for Dignitatis Humane came from Catholics around the world who were being persecuted by totalitarian regimes.

Conclusion

Dignitatis Humanae is consistent with Church history, because history can be explained in terms of exceptions to religious freedom (see section 2). Dignitatis Humane is consistent with the reversal of (Catholic) Governments’ duties towards Catholicism because that reversal is a change of policy, not doctrine (see section 6).

There is much more to be said about why the Church would change its policy so radically, but that is a story for another day.

One issue raised by Dignitatis Humane is that there may be an ambiguity in the document (see section 3). That ambiguity has caused some Catholics to break with the Church and accuse it of doctrinal error. This is what Pope Benedict XVI referred to as reading the document with a “hermeneutic of discontinuity” (Christmas Speech, 2005).

However, the ambiguity in the document can be read consistently with Church doctrine. And modern over-mighty governments do indeed represent a new problem for the Church. If this is so, then it provides a coherent, consistent and plausible reading of Dignitatis Humanae which shows that it is in continuity with previous doctrine.

This brings us to perhaps the most significant question posed by Dignitatis Humanae. If there is no necessity to interpret it as a doctrinal change, then why do so?

 

 

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

18 thoughts on “Religious Freedom: Did Vatican II Change Church Doctrine?”

  1. Pingback: Vatican II: Did Ancient Popes and Saints Violate Religious Freedom? - Catholic Stand

  2. Pingback: Ecumenism: Did Vatican II Make a Mistake? - Catholic Stand

  3. Pingback: Does the Common Good Require Integralism? - Rory Fox

  4. Pingback: Does the Common Good Require Integralism? - Catholic Stand

  5. Pingback: Religious Freedom and Vatican II - Rory Fox

  6. Pingback: Religious Freedom and Vatican II - Rory Fox

  7. Pingback: Renovation Of The Chapel Of A Carmelite Monastery In Michigan, Bring On The Persecution, and More! – christian-99.com

  8. An ordinary papist

    Peter K
    Gibbon was 200 years removed from Cortez, roasting indigenous natives of what was to become Mexico, in the name of Jesus, when he penned the Decline and Fall, documenting the era from Peter and Paul to the Inquisition. He was as angry as we Americans were outraged when we learned of Wounded Knee 100 years after the fact.
    Fast forward 200 years after Gibbon to Vietnam 1963, a country 80% Buddhist. The regime led by President Ngo Diem was not only in the US pocket but the Catholic Church was on a mission to turn the whole country to its faith. Jesus’ command to preach the Gospel was now weaponized to MAKE disciples by force;. The clergy having been given enormous power ( “ to hold in obedience …” ) and the Catholic Church, being the largest landowner of this “foreign country”, resulted in forced conversions in an attempt to stamp out the prevailing doctrines of eastern deism.
    This all came to a head in June 1963 when Buddhist prayer flags were banned and replaced by the Vatican’s Papal flag being hoisted in its place. The riots that followed saw Diem’s soldiers killing 9 protesters who were demonstrating for the religious equality afforded them under the French.
    Finally, a devout Buddhist monk named Thich Quang Duc, immolated himself in a public square to bring attention to this persecution – with the whole world watching. And here I was, for many decades, thinking that he died to protest the Vietnam Conflict.
    Two years later Vatican 2 concluded and with it the opening statement titled : On non Christian religions.

    1. Your comments are so ludicrous as to rival the repeated efforts of Captcrisis.
      For one thing Cortes never set foot in Mexico.
      Gibbon wasn’t angry he was just a plain old fashioned bigot who hated those with different views to his own, most especially Catholics because damning them as demons was the only way he saw to justify his own beliefs.
      Far from being in the US pocket, the late great Ngo Din Diem, revered to this day by Vietnamese democrats and freedom-lovers of all religions, was hated by the USA because of his refusal to respond militarily to Marxist incursions, so they organized a coup to replace and kill him, and with him the only truly democratic government that Vietnam has ever had.

    2. An ordinary papist

      I didn’t take you for a historical revisionist, Peter, and with that being said I will end this
      thread, noting that you never touch the meat of my premise, only the skimpy vegetables.

  9. I am surprised why God allowed so many different religions to come into existence, especially the Moslem religion in basically the same area where Christianity was already thriving.

    1. Probably for similar reasons that He allowed the Kingdom of Israel, which He had promised would ensure forever, after a short period of independence to be oppressed by a series of foreign kingdoms, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and finally the Romans.

  10. An ordinary papist

    This brings us to perhaps the most significant question posed by Dignitatis Humanae. If there is no necessity to interpret it as a doctrinal change, then why do so?

    There is nothing perhaps more adverse to nature and reason than to hold in
    obedience remote countries and foreign nations in opposition to their inclination
    and interest. Edward Gibbon (from The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)

    Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
    Albert Einstein

    “If you cling to an idea as the inalterable truth, then when the truth does come in
    person and knock at your door, you will not be able to open the door and accept it.” 
    – Udana Sutta

    1. I agree. No one says the Church’s position on religious tolerance is dogma. It’s just Church teaching, and Church teaching has changed on various matters. Not that I agreed with previous teaching, but it’s not necessary to try to pretend that it’s never changed.

    2. Your comment ties you to the bigotry of Gibbon and many of his contemporary countrymen who branded “Roman” Catholics as traitors for “owing (temporal) allegiance to a foreign Prince”(the Pope).

  11. 1. If someone lays down a rule, and gives only two or three exceptions, with no residual “catch-all” exception, that means he is not permitting any other exceptions.

    2. It’s very easy to maintain “order” by burning dissenters at the stake — or at least torturing them until they “confess”. Dictators often ensure that you can safely walk the streets at night. But we’ve moved past that, haven’t we? During the summer of 1787 Framers of the Constitution extensively discussed the proper balance between “order” and “liberty”. By contrast, the Church didn’t even acknowledge the “liberty” part until 1965.

    3. It was simply not true that religious tolerance led to disorder. For some two hundred years before 1965, religious tolerance was practiced in complex, orderly societies like Britain, the United States, and increasingly in Western democracies. Pius IX and Leo XIII were fighting a rearguard action, and it wasn’t for pragmatic reasons. As Pius IX put it, “Error has no rights.” They opposed religious freedom as a matter of principle, for all time. The truth is, Church did change its mind in 1965, only after it realized it was being ridiculous.

    1. Your comment is ridiculous. The whole idea that the Church only recognized liberty in 1965 is ridiculous. Most of your other attempts to state facts are incorrect.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.