Did Vatican II Endorse Indifferentism?

Indifferentism is the belief that God is indifferent to religious differences. It is the view that it does not matter what religion people follow, as long as they do their best to be morally good.

Some commentators believe that Vatican II erred by endorsing indifferentism. They even say of Vatican II that:

The primary doctrinal error of this false council is religious indifferentism. (CMRI website)

Is that a fair criticism of Vatican II?

1. What Is Indifferentism?

Indifferentism can be understood as making the following claims:

1. It does not matter what religion a person follows
2. because all religions are essentially equal.

Theist indifferentists believe that all religions are equally valid ways of approaching God, so it does not matter which religion a person follows. Atheist indifferentists believe that all religions are equally wrong, so it does not matter which religion a person follows.

The Catechism notes that indifferentism is particularly worrying because it can all too easily drift into a form of “practical atheism” (see CCC 2128). That problem was also identified by Pope Leo XIII in 1885:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism. (Immortale Dei, 31)

Despite the links between indifferentism and atheism, it would be a mistake to assume that all indifferentists must be atheists. For example, Omnism typically equates all religions but generally still insists that there is a deity which all the religions are related to.

It would also be a mistake to think that indifferentism rules out the view that there is one true faith. An indifferentist might think that one religion is a privileged route to salvation, but that there are other religions which still offer possible routes to salvation. A version of that kind of view occurs in Latitudinarianism which assumes that Christianity is superior to all other religions. But it then takes an indifferentist approach by saying that it does not matter which denomination of Christianity a person follows.

2. No Salvation Outside the Church

Indifferentism implies that salvation can be found in different faiths. This means that it is incompatible with the traditional Church teaching that “there is no salvation outside the Church.” That teaching is arguably a central dogma of Christianity, as it has been repeated authoritatively.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) said:

There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved. (Lateran IV, Profession of Faith)

Pope Boniface VIII (1302) expressed the same point by referring to obedience to the pope as a necessary requisite for salvation:

We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam)

And Pope Eugene IV (1442) reiterated the same point in the teaching of the Council of Florence:

[The Church]… firmly believes, professes and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church… cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Cantate Domino)

3. Nineteenth-Century Rejection of Indifferentism

As a result of the incompatibility between indifferentism and the doctrine that “there is no salvation outside the Church,” nineteenth-century popes were quick to condemn indifferentism.

In 1824 Pope Leo XII characterized it as the “impiety of madmen” because it claimed:

God has given every individual a wide freedom to embrace and adopt without danger to his salvation whatever sect or opinion appeals to him on the basis of his private judgment. (Ubi Primum, 12)

In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI described it as a

… perverse opinion… [which] claims that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. (Mirari Vos, 13)

In 1854 Pope Pius IX condemned indifferentism as a “deadly virus” (Apostolicae Nostrae, 1). In 1856 he described it as a “hideous error” (Singulari Quidem, 3) and in 1863 he called it ”a very grave error” (Quanto Conficiamur, 7). In 1864 he also rejected the Latitudinarian version of indifferentism, when he condemned the view that:

Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. (Syllabus of Errors, 18)

4. Indifferentism and Religious Freedom

A belief in indifferentism leads naturally to an advocacy for types of religious freedom (or freedom of conscience). This is due to the fact that if it does not matter what religion people follow, then it does not matter about putting restrictions on people’s religious choices. So, indifferentists are generally happy to promote religious freedom.

Although indifferentism typically leads to religious freedom, promoting religious freedom does not automatically imply an indifferentist belief or motive for doing so.

For example, a person could believe that there is one true faith, but also believe that the best way of getting converts is to do so purely through persuasion (i.e., in a context of religious freedom), rather than by trying to get converts through restricting the practice of other religions. Elements of that kind of thinking are visible in some current of nineteenth-century Christian Liberalism, such as in the works of Montalembert (d. 1870).

Vatican II promoted religious freedom (Dignitatis Humanae, 2). But because religious freedom does not logically entail indifferentism, then it would be a mistake to automatically assume that Vatican II’s commitment to religious freedom was also a commitment to indifferentism.

This point was stated in a 2002 CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) publication:

The right to freedom of conscience and, in a special way, to religious freedom… is based… not on a non-existent equality among religions. (The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, 8)

5. The Religious Freedom Fallacy

When people argue from Vatican II’s approval of religious freedom to an assumption that Vatican II approved of indifferentism, they are potentially committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

We can see this fallacy in action by reflecting on the following example:

1. If it rains then the grass gets wet
2. The grass is wet
3. Therefore it rained.

This is fallacious reasoning because it is illogical to argue from the consequent (wet grass) back to the antecedent (rain). We can see the illogicality of the argument if we reflect on the fact that there are many alternative reasons (other than rain) for why grass might be wet. For example, a gardener might have watered the grass.

When people argue from religious freedom to indifferentism, they tend to construct an argument which has the same structure as the argument about wet grass.

1. If indifferentism is true, then religious freedom should be approved
2. Vatican II approved religious freedom
3. Therefore Vatican II thought that indifferentism was true.

This argument commits the same logical mistake as the argument about wet grass. It argues fallaciously from the consequent (religious freedom) back to the antecedent (indifferentism). The fallacy of that move is evident because there can be alternative reasons (other than indifferentism) for approving religious freedom. (See section 4 above.)

This means that it is illogical to argue that Vatican II endorsed indifferentism just because Vatican II approved of religious freedom.

This point was noted in 2009 when Pope Benedict XVI stated:

Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal. (Caritas in Veritate, 55)

6 Vatican II and Indifferentism

Vatican II stated:

This Sacred Council… teaches that the Church… is necessary for salvation. (Lumen Gentium, 1964, #14)

Claims like this are an unambiguous reiteration of the traditional dogma that “there is no salvation outside of the Church.” (For further details see “Did Vatican II Change the Doctrine ‘No Salvation Outside the Church’?”).

We have already seen (in section 2 above) that that dogma is logically incompatible with the idea of indifferentism, so Vatican II’s reaffirmation of the doctrine was an implicit rejection of indifferentism.

We also know that the issue of indifferentism was explicitly raised and discussed in the speeches at Vatican II. Archbishop Karol Wojtyla (the future Pope John Paul II) made a speech on 22 September 1965 which called for a change to the wording of the Declaration on Religious Liberty. His comments make it clear that he wants to rule out any misinterpretations of the document which could accidentally open the door to indifferentism. The final version of Vatican II’s text acknowledged his point by incorporating his requested amendment. (See John Paul II on Religious Freedom.)

If the text of one of Vatican II’s documents was deliberately changed to avoid being seen to promote indifferentism, then it is difficult to argue that the Council endorsed indifferentism.

7. Vatican II Ad Gentes

Vatican II also commented on indifferentism in its decree on Missionary Activity (Ad Gentes). Unfortunately, the point is somewhat obscured due to a problem in standard translations of the Latin.

We can see the issue if we put the English and Latin texts of the relevant paragraph side by side. In paragraph 15, Vatican II warned against opening the door to “indifference” (in English) and “indifferentism” (in Latin):

Arguably, the English translation in this quote is not accurately rendering the full sense of the original Latin. It uses the word “indifference” to translate the Latin indifferentismus. However, Latin has another word, indifferentia, which is more naturally translated into English as “indifference”.

We can see examples of that other Latin word being used in Church documents, such as Pope John Paul II’s 1988 encyclical on Faith and Reason, where he warns about world views

…which can easily lead to scepticism, indifference (indifferentiae) or to various forms of nihilism. (Fides et Ratio, 81)

However, when Vatican II used the word indifferentismus (in Ad Gentes, 15) its language arguably had a more technical sense, as the word indifferentismus is the very same word which appears in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. (See the Latin text in Creeds of Christendom, 1876, p. 233.)

This means that a better English translation of Ad Gentes, 15 would make it clear that Vatican II is insisting on the avoidance of precisely what Pius IX condemned, i.e., indifferentism, and not just indifference.

Evidence that this is indeed a more accurate translation of paragraph 15 can be seen by the fact that when paragraph 50 of the 1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism quotes Ad Gentes, paragraph 15, it actually translates the Latin of Vatican II into English using the word “indifferentism” and not the word “indifference.”

This means that paragraph 15 of Ad Gentes arguably directly contradicts the claim that Vatican II endorsed indifferentism.

8. Indifferentism and Relativism

“Indifferentism” continues to be rejected in Church teaching after Vatican II. For example, in 1993 a document was approved by Pope John Paul II which stated:

It is very important in the ecumenical sphere, as in other spheres, to avoid abuses which could either contribute to or entail doctrinal indifferentism. (Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, 6)

However, it is also the case that the word “indifferentism” does not occur as often in modern Church documents. That is arguably due to the fact that what the Church used to condemn as “indifferentism” it now rejects as “relativism.”

The fact that the Church equates indifferentism and relativism can be seen in a number of official documents. For example, in 1928 Pope Pius XI wrote:

It is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism… Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative. (Mortalium Animos, 9)

A similar linking of indifferentism and relativism can be found in 2000 when Pope John Paul II approved a document which stated:

This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out… that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’”‌. (Dominus Iesus, 22)

What this means is that the Church continues to reject indifferentism after Vatican II, but its rejection may now be expressed with slightly different terminology, as a rejection of relativism.

9. Conclusion

It should be clear by now that the Church rejected indifferentism prior to Vatican II (see sections 1-3). It rejected it during Vatican II (see sections 6-7). And it continued to reject it after Vatican II (see section 8).

It is also clear that arguments from Vatican II’s approval of religious freedom to the conclusion that Vatican II approved of indifferentism, commit a logical fallacy. (See sections 4-5.)

If documentary evidence and the logical implications of that evidence suggests that Vatican II did not endorse indifferentism, then that means that it is inaccurate to state or imply the opposite.