Vatican II: Did Ancient Popes and Saints Violate Religious Freedom?

This question is prompted by views like the following:

The saints have never hesitated to break idols, destroy their temples, or legislate against pagan or heretical practices… To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes (and) saints … have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious. (Matthias Gaudron, Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, 2010, Q.38)

This is what Pope Benedict XVI, in 2005, called the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture.” It reads Church history between the pre- and post-Vatican II (1965) Church as one of fracture, particularly on the issue of Religious Freedom.

Opposed to this position is the “hermeneutic of continuity.” This views Church history as one of doctrinal consistency and coherence, especially on the subject of Religious Freedom.

Which view is right?

1. Prevention of Paganism

Ancient saints and popes took robust action against non-Catholic faiths.

St. Martin de Tours (d. 397) spent much of his life travelling around Gaul (modern day France), overturning paganism and chopping down “sacred trees.” His impact was so significant that he became one of the first non-martyrs to be popularly acclaimed as a saint.

Pope St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) sent a missionary team to convert England. To support missionary efforts he wrote to Abbot Mellitus, instructing him not to destroy pagan temples. Instead, he wanted the temples to be seized and converted into churches.

2. Vatican II: Religious Freedom

The Second Vatican Council (1965) endorsed Religious Freedom as a human right. The council said:

It follows that [a person] … is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. (Dignitatis Humanae 3)

Vatican II said that people should not be prevented from practicing their faith. But St. Martin and St. Gregory prevented pagans from practicing their faith.

On the surface, it looks as if there is a discontinuity between ancient practices and the words of Vatican II.

This impression of discontinuity is strengthened when we look at the actions and words of modern popes. The idea of Religious Freedom was condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832), Pope Bl. Pius IX in Quanta Cura (1864), Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1885) and Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925). Yet, St. John Paul II lauded it in the Address at the 1986 Assisi Interfaith event.

The impression of discontinuity seems so profound as to look like a discontinuity of contradiction between ancient popes and modern practices.

3. Can Doctrine Be Contradictory?

St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) explains why contradictions are impossible, even for God to bring about. It is because contradictory sets of words can have no implications, so they lack a meaning and have literally no content which God could bring about (Summa Theologiae 1, Q.25, a.3).

Christians do not intend their doctrine to be meaningless, so it cannot be contradictory.

However, doctrinal and ethical claims can occasionally seem contradictory because of issues about the precision of their expression. For example, the Ten Commandments state “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13). But there are obvious exceptions to this, such as killing in self-defense. The existence of exceptions means that there can be an appearance of contradiction, as it can seem that killing people is both wrong (as per Exodus), and not-wrong (as per self-defense).

This is not a real contradiction. There is a doctrine about the wrongness of murder, which is exceptionless. Forbidding killing is a policy directive which enacts that doctrine in a simple and easily implemented way. However, its simplicity arises at the expense of its precision.

One of the questions raised by the issue of Religious Freedom is whether it is meant to be a statement of exceptionless doctrine, or is it a policy which admits of exceptions.

4. Is Religious Freedom a Doctrine?

Vatican II insists that the idea of Religious Freedom is not to be understood in a discontinuous or contradictory way. It states that it

leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. (Dignitatis Humanae 1)

This notes that there was already a “traditional Catholic doctrine” prior to the council. So whatever Vatican II is doing, it cannot be announcing a new contradictory policy.

Vatican II refers to exceptions to Religious Freedom, such as public order requirements (Dignitatis Humanae 2). In the example in the previous section, we saw that exceptions typically apply to policies, not doctrines.

Dignitatis Humanae can even be read to define the Church as potentially exempt from the strictures of Religious Freedom. It says that “no merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of … Religious Freedom” (DH 3). But the Church does not consider itself to be a “merely human power.” For example, in 1922 Pope Pius XI said that the Church was divinely instituted (Ubi Arcano 42–44). So, can a divinely instituted power override human Religious Freedom?

Vatican II does not clarify that point. Nor does it clarify whether its exceptions to Religious Freedom are illustrative, or whether they are meant to be a definitive list. Vatican II announces Religious Freedom, but its announcement is ambiguous.

However, it is clear that Religious Freedom cannot be a doctrine. In “Religious Freedom: Did Vatican II Change Church Doctrine?” it was suggested that Dignitatis Humanae should be read as implementing a change of policy, not a change of doctrine.

5. Can a Change of Policy Be Contradictory?

Properly stated doctrines cannot be contradictory. But the religious practices which are expressions of doctrines (i.e., policies) can be right at one time and wrong at another time. This is because policy applications of doctrines are typically formulated into circumstances which can change, so they themselves may need to change in response.

We can see what this means by considering an example of the Index Librorum.

For many centuries the Church maintained the Index as a list of forbidden books. These were books judged to contain errors which can undermine people’s faith. So Catholics were forbidden to read the books.

In 1966 the Index was cancelled. In doing so, the Church made it clear that its doctrine had not changed. Books previously identified as misleading continued to be misleading, and the Church continued to think that they should be avoided by Catholics (see Notification, 1966). However, the Church now thought that it was no longer a useful policy to publish a list and to enforce a penalty for reading the books.

There are many reasons for this change of policy. One of the reasons is that the Index was arguably beginning to have the opposite impact to that intended. In previous centuries putting a book on the Index limited its publicity and circulation. By the middle of the twentieth century, putting a book on the Index could generate headlines and be a potential source of publicity, thus increasing its circulation.

The changed circumstances in the twentieth century meant that the Index was no longer “working” in the way originally intended. So, it was time for a new policy, even if the new policy was a reversal of aspects of the previous policy.

This is essentially what has happened with Religious Freedom. For many centuries the Church pursued the policy of banning Religious Freedom. Now circumstances have changed, and so the policy of banning Religious Freedom has also had to change.

6. Why Did the Church Need a New Policy?

The Church’s traditional doctrine is that human beings have a duty to worship God in the Catholic way. This leads to the conclusion that Religious Freedom should be banned. This is why the nineteenth-century popes cited above condemned Religious Freedom.

However, the Church has always maintained one exception to its banning of Religious Freedom. This is the exception for tolerance, which states that a degree of Religious Freedom should be tolerated when banning it would lead to a worse evil, like war (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 36, 1885).

At Vatican II the Church changed its policy on Religious Freedom because it could see that there was indeed a potentially worse evil. That “worse evil” was the rise of intolerant Totalitarianism, Communism and over-mighty secular governments, all of which can threaten the very capacity of the Church to operate. To defend itself the Church needed a clear and simple statement of Religious Freedom.

But wasn’t the Church already insisting on Religious Freedom for itself before Vatican II? Yes, however the Church’s position was complicated. The Church was essentially demanding Religious Freedom for itself, and tolerance for others until the Church was powerful enough to ban others from practicing what it considered to be their erroneous religions. The theological subtly of this position was lost on critics, who just accused the Church of hypocrisy.

When the Church asked theocratic anti-Catholic countries to allow Catholics to worship, those countries could reply by saying that the Church would ban their religions if it was powerful enough to do so, so how could the Church complain about them banning Catholicism.

Proclaiming Religious Freedom enabled the Church to simplify its message, so that it could protect Catholics all around the world. One of the positive outcomes of this is that non-Catholics have become more supportive to Catholics. For example, the Church of St. Francis Xavier in Salalah (Oman) was built with financial support from the Muslim authorities.

7. A Natural Right to Religious Freedom

Even if the Church has benefited from proclaiming Religious Freedom, did the Church really need to proclaim a “natural right” to Religious Freedom? Couldn’t it have just insisted upon a universal tolerance?

Arguably, no, because tolerance admits of degrees and leaves too much discretion to governments to decide what should be tolerated. On the contrary, “rights” are justified through an appeal to human nature. Governments cannot change human nature, so they cannot change the “right” which Catholics have to practice their faith.

Ultimately a “right” to Religious Freedom is better for Catholics than a proclamation of universal tolerance, because it gives maximum protection to practice the Catholic faith.

8. Religious Freedom: Prophetic?

Since Vatican II, Catholics have been finding it increasingly necessary to appeal to Religious Freedom. Catholic doctors and nurses have appealed to it to avoid being compelled to take part in abortion procedures. Catholic Aid workers have appealed to it to avoid UN strategies of reproductive rights. Catholic workers have appealed to it to avoid being compelled to work Sunday shifts.

In some parts of the world Catholics are appealing to Religious Freedom to respond to assertions of LGBT rights. In other parts of the world Catholics have had to appeal to Religious Freedom to get public mass reinstated after COVID lockdowns.

The modern world is increasingly citing “rights,” and those rights are increasingly conflicting with Catholics’ abilities to follow their conscience and practice their faith.

In this context Religious Freedom has never been more important to Catholics. Perhaps Vatican II’s commitment to Religious Freedom could even begin to seem prophetic?

9. Conclusion: Did Ancient Popes Sin?

The traditional doctrine of the Church is that it thinks that everyone should worship God in the Catholic way. (See: “Is the Church Necessary for Salvation?”) In the medieval world this led to popes and saints destroying temples and preventing people from practicing other religions. In the modern world it has led to a statement of Religious Freedom to protect Catholics’ ability to live and worship as Catholics.

In changing its policy the Church said that there was a natural right to Religious Freedom. This raises the question of whether ancient popes and saints sinned by denying people their natural right to practice their religion of paganism.

There are two ways of answering this question.

Someone following the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” can say that if people have a “right” to Religious Freedom then ancient popes and saints must have infringed pagans’ rights, and so they must have sinned. Or else the modern Church has erred by declaring a natural right.

Someone following the “hermeneutic of continuity” will note that Dignitatis Humanae states that there are exceptions to the right for Religious Freedom. The document may be ambiguous about which is the relevant exception, but the existence of exceptions means that ancient popes and saints did not sin in banning pagan worship.

Which is the right answer? What people perceive as the right answer will depend largely upon whether they choose to read Catholic theology with a hermeneutic of continuity or with a hermeneutic of discontinuity.